CAR_Public/011008.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 8, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 196


                          Headlines

AMEDISYS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in M.D. LA
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Berman DeValerio Initiates OH Securities Suit
ASIA PULP: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Cohen Milstein Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit
COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA

COMFORT WOMEN: Judge Dismisses WWII Sex Slavery Suit Against Japan
EAGLE GLOBAL: Settlement With EEOC Does Not Resolve Private Suit
EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit
HAYES LAMMERZ:  Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI
HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in VA

i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates N.D. TX Securities Suit
INTRENET INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MARCONI PLC: Marc Henzel Commences W.D. Pennsylvania Securities Suit
MERANT PLC: Court Grants CA Securities Suit Class Certification

NEW FOCUS: Kirby McInerney Appointed Lead Counsel In N.D. CA Suit
PSS WORLD MEDICAL: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in FL
RAYTHEON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in MA
SAN DIEGO: City Appeals Judge's Ruling On "Red Light Camera" Tickets
SOUTH KOREA: Government To Set Criteria For Filing Securities Suits

STEVE MADDEN: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
TPST TECHNOLOGIES: Alleged Noisy Plant Operations Spur Couple's Suit
UNILAB CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue Relating To 1999 Recapitalization
VARI-L CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in CO
WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in NY



                          *********


AMEDISYS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in M.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull and Brody initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Amedisys, Inc. (OTCBB:AMED) from
between March 1, 2001 and June 13, 2001, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, against defendants:

     (1) Amedisys, Inc.

     (2) William F. Borne,

     (3) Larry R. Graham, and

     (4) John M. Joffrion

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues and earnings.
During the Class Period, the Company touted positive financial results
and profitable net service revenue in connection with its home health
nursing services.

Shareholders purport, however, that Amedisys improperly recognized net
services revenue in the fourth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of
2001 in violation of GAAP. On June 13, 2001, Amedisys issued a press
release announcing that its previously announced financial results were
incorrect.

Specifically, the Company announced that discrepancies in the Medicare
Prospective Payment System resulted in a negative adjustment to net
services revenue of between $4 and $7 million. As a result, the
Company's stock price plummeted almost 60% to close at $4.10 per share
on June 13, 2001.

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


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Berman DeValerio Initiates OH Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo commenced a class action
suit against American Electric Power Company, Inc. pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The action seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who purchased AEP common stock between July
25, 1997 and June 25, 1999. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and
certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws.

Specifically, the complaint charges that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the impaired condition of its
D.C. Cook nuclear power plant and the adverse affect that the problems
had, and would have, on the company's business and its financial
results. As a result, the complaint alleges that the price of the
Company's common stock was artificially inflated during the Class
Period.

By order of the Court, dated September 26, 2000, all related cases have
been consolidated and Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were appointed.

For more information, contact Michael Lange by Mail: One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542-1194 or
visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com


ASIA PULP: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP commenced a class action complaint on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Asia Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd.
(NYSE:PAP) OTC APUUY) common stock during the period from December 17,
1998 through and including April 4, 2001, both dates inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, charges defendants with violations of sections
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued to the investing public
false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning
the Company's publicly reported earnings, net income, and receivables.
The Company failed to disclose its exposure and loss on a derivative
swap contract and failed to disclose related party and uncollectible
receivables.

Asia Pulp was delisted from the NYSE on July 5, 2001.

For more information, contact Rekha M. Carozza or Maurice Pesso by
Mail: Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by
Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-
mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.rabinlaw.com


CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Cohen Milstein Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of California Amplifier Inc.
(Nasdaq:CAMP) during the period between April 6, 2000 and March 28,
2001, inclusive.

The complaint accuses California Amplifier and a top corporate officer
of knowingly using improper accounting procedures that skewed financial
statements - illegally reducing expenses and boosting earnings - and
inflated the company's stock price.

In March, the company announced that its comptroller had resigned after
making certain adjustments to the company's accounting records that
could force it to restate fiscal 2000 results to reduce net income by
as much as $2.2 million. The company's investigation triggered a
decline in its stock price. Nasdaq officials halted trading at $5.03,
more than 90% off the Class Period high of $ 59.25.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll or Robert Smits by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com
or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com


COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a securities class
action suit against Commtouch Software Ltd. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit seeks
damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all
investors who bought the Company's common stock between April 19, 2000
and February 13, 2001.

The complaint accuses the Company and two of its top officers of
inflating the Company's stock price by issuing false and misleading
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2000.

In February 2001, the Company announced that it would restate its
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2000 because of
improper accounting. The Company also reported that, subject to the
completion of the 2000 audit, it expects to restate its revenues and
net loss for the first three quarters of 2000.

In total, the Company will adjust its revenues by $4.4 million. The net
loss for the first three quarters of 2000 will be $9.1 million, $10.8
million and $10.2 million, respectively, compared to the previously
announced net loss of $8.5 million, $9.9 million and $7.6 million.

For more information, contact Sara B. Davis by Mail: One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542-1194 or
visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com


COMFORT WOMEN: Judge Dismisses WWII Sex Slavery Suit Against Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Federal Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. dismissed the class action suit
filed against Japan by Asian women seeking compensation and an apology
for being forced into sexual slavery during World War II.

The 15 named plaintiffs in the suit were among some 200,000 women from
the Korean Peninsula, China, the Philippines and Taiwan who were forced
by the Japanese military into sexual slavery during the 1930s and
1940s. The military camps where the slavery occurred were called
"comfort stations" and the slaves were known as "comfort women."

Kennedy acknowledged the suffering of the so-called "comfort women",
however he emphasized that the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction because
Japan still had sovereign immunity from prosecution. The sexual slavery
occurred when sovereigns, including the emperor of Japan, enjoyed
absolute immunity from prosecution in the United States.

"Under that law, Japan is immune from suit," the U.S. brief said.

The plaintiffs had earlier argued that a U.S. court was the proper
place for their case and that Japan had waived sovereign immunity in
agreements signed after World War Two.

Judge Kennedy rejected these arguments, saying that the claims of the
"comfort women" should be addressed directly between governments.
"There is no question that this court is not the appropriate forum in
which plaintiffs may seek to reopen those discussions nearly a half-
century later," Judge Kennedy wrote.

The ruling's conclusion referred again to the need for compensation for
the women: ``For the foregoing reasons, this court is unable to provide
plaintiffs the redress they seek and surely deserve.''

Lawyers for the women filed an immediate appeal and said they planned
to ask for an expedited hearing in the case. Attorney Michael Hausfeld
said in a statement, "Today's decision, if permitted to stand, will
allow any country, anywhere, to commit crimes against humanity without
accountability."


EAGLE GLOBAL: Settlement With EEOC Does Not Resolve Private Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the private class action suit against Eagle Global
Logistics re-asserted their claims, despite the $9 million settlement
between Eagle Global Logistics and the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The settlement with the EEOC purports to resolve the government's
suit known as Dube et al. v. Eagle Global Logistics, alleging that the
Company engaged in gross widespread discrimination on the basis of
race, gender and national origin.

The plaintiffs assert that press releases announcing the settlement
fail to make clear ".that a private class action against the freight
carrier and at least one additional federal court suit is still
pending."

The suits allege that the Company engaged in unlawful employment
practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Equal Pay
Act by:

     (1) failing and/or refusing to recruit and/or hire Blacks,     
         Hispanics, and females into professional, managerial and sales
         positions because of their race, national origin, sex and age;

     (2) failing and/or refusing to promote Blacks, Hispanics and
         females into managerial and sales positions because of their
         race, national origin, sex and age;

     (3) failing and/or refusing to recruit and/or hire Blacks and
         females into warehouse, delivery and truck driver positions
         because of their race, national origin and sex;

     (4) demoting females from managerial positions because of their
         sex and disparate imposition of discipline because of sex
        (female), race (Black) and national origin (Hispanic);

     (5) maintaining a hostile working environment against Blacks,
         Hispanics and females with respect to terms, conditions and
         privileges of employment because of their race and national

         origin and sex;

     (6) failing to properly investigate incidents of sexual
         harassment, failing to discipline wrongdoers and failing to
         protect employees from sexual harassment;

     (7) failing to maintain proper record regarding the hiring of
         employees; and

     (8) failing to file accurate EEO-1 Reports.

They have also called on Judge Lynn Hughes to provide for full and open
public review of the settlement, that they claimed was tainted by
".Eagle's false statements to the Court, and the EEOC's highly
irregular readiness to exclude plaintiffs and their representatives
from all settlement discussions."

In May 2000, the EEOC issued a 104-page Determination finding that the
Company had broadly discriminated against employees, based on the
plaintiff's claims. In December of that year, the EEOC joined as
intervenor in federal court case against the Company.

In response, the Company asserted in a regulatory filing that the
EEOC's finding was not supported by "credible evidence" and claimed
that the EEOC was biased against them due to their "vigorous defense of
this matter." The Company further claimed that the EEOC ".maliciously
targeted EGL because the company has chosen to aggressively defend
itself rather than surrender to allegations it knows to be untrue."
As a result, the Court ordered the EEOC to make a settlement offer to
the Company.

Despite confirming that the Company had made false statements to the
Court preceding the settlement offer, the EEOC refused call these
statements to the court's attention. Instead, the EEOC proceeded to
engage in settlement talks with Eagle from which Plaintiffs and their
counsel were excluded.

Moreover, the EEOC acquiesced in a settlement that may require the
plaintiffs in the private case to give up meritorious claims of
discrimination, which the government did not directly address and
resolve as a condition of accepting any compensation under it. The
plaintiffs believe there is enough evidentiary basis that the Company
violated equal opportunity and civil rights laws.

Employees of Eagle who have faced race, gender, or national origin
discrimination and need more information about the Dube litigation can
contact the Washington, DC office of Provost and Umphrey at 202-466-
0900, counsel to Plaintiffs in the litigation.


EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Exodus
Communications, Inc. from March 30, 2001 through June 20, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants Exodus and certain of its officers
and directors issued false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the defendants were alarmed by the dramatic decline in the
Company's share price, which had declined from over $28 per share in
late January to $10 per share by mid-March 2001.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that defendants then formulated a
plan to not only halt the erosion of the Company's share price, but
reinflate it as well. The Company's high stock price was dependent upon
the appearance of its phenomenal growth rate. However, by March 2001,
the complaint claims that defendants were aware that the Company was
falling victim both to the general economic slowdown and the bursting
of the Internet bubble.

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

On June 20, 2001, the complaint alleges that the Company revealed that
its revenue would be significantly below expectations due to:

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

     (2) an increase in the rate of cancellations,

     (3) reduction of orders from existing customers and

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

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

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Mary Ann Fink by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005 by
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com


HAYES LAMMERZ:  Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Marc S. Henzel commenced a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Hayes Lammerz International, Inc.
(NYSE: HAZ) between June 8, 2000 and September 5, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
concerning its financial results for fiscal 2000 and the first quarter
of fiscal 2001.

Specifically, the reported net loss of $41.8 million for fiscal 2000
was understated by at least 31% and was actually $56.4 million for that
fiscal year period. Net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2001,
which was previously reported as $7.6 million, was understated by a
staggering 350% and was actually $34.7 million for the quarter.

The Company stated that its investigation relating to these financial
misrepresentations would continue and that additional restatements or
adjustments may be necessary. Also, as a result of these restatements,
the Company revealed that it was in breach of certain financial
covenants under its senior credit facility.

On September 5, 2001, when this adverse information was disclosed, the
stock was halted from trading and opened the following day at $2.10 per
share. This represented a 50% decline from the prior day's trading
price of $4.15 per share and more than a 90% decline from the $20 per
share Hayes stock had been trading at during the class period.

For more information, contact The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone:
215.625.9999 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 215.440.9475 by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC commenced a class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on
behalf of purchasers of Humphrey Hospitality Trust, Inc. (Nasdaq:HUMP)
during the period between November 14, 2000 and March 29, 2001,
inclusive.

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. The defendant allegedly issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants conditioned the market to believe in the strength of
Company's financial condition, and that the Company's conservative
fiscal policies meant that its dividend was secure.

The complaint further alleges that on March 29, 2001, the Company
shocked the market by announcing that its Lessee advised:

     (1) that, without a substantial reduction in the rent, it would be
         unable to lease and operate the hotels; and

     (2) that the Board of Directors had established "a committee of
         independent directors" to "explore alternatives available to
         the Company"

The Company also announced that its dividend would be reduced for
monthly payments subsequent to dividends payable to shareholders of
record on March 30, 2001. Humphrey common stock opened at $7.0938 per
share on March 29, 2001 and closed that day at $4.7812 that day on
volume of 217,200 shares, approximately seven times its average volume.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll or Robert Smits by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com  
or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com


i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates N.D. TX Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP lodged a class action
lawsuit against i2 Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ITWO) on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of i2 during the
period between January 18, 2001 through February 26, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division and names as defendants, the
Company's Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer-Sanjiv S. Sidh,
and the Company's Chief Financial Officer-William M. Beecher.

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 information about the Company's business
operations and financial condition. As a result of these false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

As alleged in the Complaint, but unbeknownst to investors, Nike, Inc.,
one of i2's material customers who purchased i2's software products and
services for use in its footware division, was experiencing problems
with its implementation of i2's software. Nevertheless, i2 issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements, which failed to
disclose that i2 was experiencing software implementation difficulties
and that these problems were material and severe. In particular, i2
issued a Press Release announcing "record" revenues for the fourth
quarter and year ended December 31, 2000, emphasizing customer
satisfaction with its products and touting its "tremendous heritage of
executing and delivering value."

Thereafter, Nike issued a statement, after the close of the market,
revising its third quarter and fiscal 2001 earnings due to, among other
things, "complications arising from the impact of implementing [its]
new demand and supply planning systems" which were developed by i2.
Specifically, Nike was forced to reduce its shoe sales by $80-$100
million because of problems that it had implementing a new i2 supply
chain management system which caused shortages of some products and
overstocking of others.

On February 27, 2001 in an interview with CNN, defendant Sanjiv S.
Sidhu stated that "[t]he fault for that is not Nike, it is i2's. We are
the experts. We are the doctors. We are to tell the patient this is
exactly what you need to do. And I think we've recognized our fall and
we're working with Nike to overcome that." Following Nike's statement
and defendant Sidhu's admission of responsibility, i2's stock closed at
$27.56 on February 27, 2001, down 22% from its close on February 26,
2001 at $35.50.

During the Class Period, i2 common stock traded as high as $61.00 on
January 24, 2001.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-4-POMLAW
(888-476-6529) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.pomlaw.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address and telephone number.


INTRENET INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a securities class
action suit against Intrenet, Inc. (Nasdaq: INETE) and two of the
Company's senior executives.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from February 19, 1999 through October 13, 2000,
inclusive. The Complaint charges that Intrenet and its executives
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by providing materially false and misleading information about the
Company's financial condition. As a result of these false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

As alleged in the Complaint, Intrenet's statements regarding the
Company's 1998 and 1999 financial results and earnings per share were
materially false and misleading since the Company's reported financial
results and growth were attributable to improper accounting practices
which resulted in an overstatement of income in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.

It is further alleged that Intrenet's earnings were lower than had been
represented by the Company because defendants had improperly inflated
net income by approximately $1.3 million, in violation of GAAP. In
October 2000 trading in Intrenet common stock was halted. Thereafter,
the Company's Board of Directors abruptly announced that the Company
would cease operations effective immediately due to a lack of funding.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 1-888-4-POMLAW
(1-888-476-6529) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com.  Those who inquire by e-mail are
encouraged to include their mailing address and voice telephonic number


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Marc S. Henzel lodged a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf all persons who acquired Loudcloud, Inc. (NASDAQ: LDCL)
securities between March 8, 2001 and May 1, 2001.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Loudcloud, Inc;

     (2) Marc L. Andreessen;

     (3) Benjamin A. Horowitz;

     (4) Roderick M. Sherwood III;

     (5) William V. Campbell;

     (6) Michael S. Ovitz;

     (7) Andrew S. Rechleff;

     (8) Goldman, Sachs & Co.;

     (9) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated;

    (10) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC;

    (11) Epoch Securities, Inc.;

    (12) Allen & Company Incorporated;

    (13) CIBC World Markets Corp.;

    (14) Dain Rauscher Incorporated;

    (15) Raymond James & Associates, Inc.;

    (16) Robertson Stephens, Inc.; and

    (17) Wit SoundView Corporation

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.

The prospectus was issued in connection with Loudcloud's initial public
offering of 25,000,000 shares of common stock at $6.00 per share that
was commenced on or about March 8, 2001. The complaint alleges that the
prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose:

     (i) Loudcloud's plans to substantially reduce its workforce and to
         restructure itself shortly after the public offering;

    (ii) that the public offering was not raising funds sufficient to
         enable the Company to reach profitability and accomplish the
         planned expansion described in the prospectus;

   (iii) the imminent cancellation of a major contract to which one of
         the underwriters was a party; and

    (iv) that in order to enable the public offering to go forward,
         undisclosed sales of shares were made to insiders and the
         selling price of the offering was artificially maintained by
         the undisclosed sale of part of the offering to insiders.

For more information, the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210
West Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: 215.625.9999      
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 215.440.9475 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


MARCONI PLC: Marc Henzel Commences W.D. Pennsylvania Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Marconi, PLC
(Nasdaq: MONI) American Deposit Receipts (ADRs) during the period of
April 11, 2001 through July 4, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Marconi, PLC and two of its principal officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Allegedly, the defendants falsely reassured investors that its revenues
would rise this year, claiming that its geographic and business mix
left it relatively immune from the economic downturn, and that it saw
no need to change its guidance. The Defendants also allegedly falsely
assured the investing community that the Company did not need to change
its earning guidance because ``the end demand is still there.''

However, less than three months later, the Company belatedly issued a
profit warning, finally disclosing that tougher trading conditions in
the three months to June meant that sales for the year would be 15
percent lower than last year. In addition, operating profit would be
down by 50 percent for the year ending March 2002. The disclosure of
the Company's true financial condition was devastating to shareholders.
Their ADR's, which hit a class period high of $12.50 on May 2, 2001,
and had closed at $7.03 on July 3, 2001, dropped by over fifty percent
when trading resumed, and closed on July 5, 2001 at only $3.35 per
share.

For more information, contact The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone:
215.625.9999 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 215.440.9475 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


MERANT PLC: Court Grants CA Securities Suit Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
class certification to the consolidated suit filed against Merant PLC
for federal securities act violations. The suit arose from seven class
action suits originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's American Depositary Shares from June 17,
1998 to November 12, 1998.

The class includes former shareholders of Intersolv, Inc. who acquired
American Depositary Shares of the Company in connection with the merger
involving the two companies.

The court ordered the seven cases consolidated and pursuant to the
order, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated complaint alleges various violations of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
alleged failure to disclose material nonpublic information concerning
the Company's business condition and prospects.

In May 1999, the Company filed a motion to transfer the matter to the
Northern District of California, which the court granted in December
1999. After the action was transferred to California, plaintiffs again
amended their complaint alleging the same claims as described in the
prior amended complaint but without the 1934 Act claims or the class
period.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the newly-amended complaint in
June 2000, which the Court granted in part. The Court dismissed all of
plaintiffs' allegations, with the exception of certain allegations that
defendants misled the market regarding the company's plans for its Y2K
business. Because of the Court's ruling, the mandatory discovery stay
of the Reform Act is no longer in effect. The plaintiffs have served
document requests on the Company and document production has begun on a
rolling schedule.

In June, the court certified that the suit could proceed as a class
action while preserving the defendants' rights to challenge, at a later
date, the propriety of this action proceeding as a class action, the
definition of the class, and the class representatives.

The Company labels the allegations as "without merit".


NEW FOCUS: Kirby McInerney Appointed Lead Counsel In N.D. CA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP was appointed as co-lead counsel in a
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased New
Focus, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUFO) common stock between January 30, 2001 and
March 5, 2001.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California and on asserts claims for violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) New Focus Inc.;

     (2) Milton M. Chang, Chairman;

     (3) Kenneth E. Westrick, Chief Executive Officer and President;

     (4) Nicola Pignati, Chief Operating Officer;

     (5) John A. Dexheimer, director,

     (6) R. Clark Harris, director,

     (7) Robert A. Marsland, Vice President, Focused Research
         Division,

     (8) George Yule, Vice President, Supply Chain Management,

     (9) Bao-Tong Ma, Vice President and General Manager,

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading financial guidance concerning fiscal 2001 revenues. In
January 2001, defendants issued a press release dramatically raising
fiscal 2001 expected revenues from $150 million to $240 million. As the
stock price immediately and sharply rose to over $60 per share in the
week following the press release, a number of Company insiders sold
their shareholdings, receiving over $8.25 million.

In the following week, the Company Focus used its appreciating share
price to consummate the acquisition of Globe Y. Technology, Inc. by
paying for Globe with the recently appreciating shares of Company
stock. However, only five weeks after raising their revenue guidance
for 2001, the defendants lowered fiscal 2001 revenue guidance to $170-
$190 million.

The sudden reversal of the company's purported outlook caused the share
price to drop to below $19 per share - a decline of almost 70% from the
high of more than $60 per share hit by New Focus stock in the immediate
aftermath of the January 30, 2001 announcement.

For more information, contact Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP by Mail: 830
Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (212) 371-6600  
or (888) 529-4787 (toll-free) by Fax: (212) 751-2540 or visit the
firm's Website: www.kmslaw.com




PSS WORLD MEDICAL: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo commenced a class action
suit against PSS World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSSI) in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The suit was filed
on behalf of all investors who bought PSS World Medical stock between
October 26, 1999 and September 1, 2000.

The class action charges Jacksonville-based PSS World Medical and two
of its top executives with making false and misleading statements about
its net income and business operations that resulted in an artificially
inflated stock price.

The complaint focuses on an aborted merger with another medical
products company, Fisher Scientific International, Inc. The company
announced the proposed merger agreement with fanfare on June 2000, when
it released its financial results for the quarter and year ended March
2000. Though the results fell short of analysts' expectations, news of
the anticipated merger announcement cushioned the blow to the company's
stock - especially since it was contingent on PSS World Medical meeting
an earnings threshold for the quarter ended June 30, 2000. In early
August, PSS announced that it had exceeded the threshold. But a few
weeks later, the company said the merger was off.

Unbeknownst to investors, Fisher's due-diligence investigation had
revealed material deficiencies in PSS World Medical's accounting
practices - deficiencies that, if corrected, would have reduced
quarterly earnings below the minimum required by the merger agreement.
The public didn't learn about the problems until June 2001, when the
company said that it would restate its results for the quarter in
question and two others.

For more details, contact Patrick T. Egan or 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


RAYTHEON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
suit against Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN/A and NYSE: RTN/B) and two of
the Company's senior officers.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of all those who purchased the Class A or
Class B common stock of Raytheon Company during the period between
March 30, 1998 and October 11, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Raytheon violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company allegedly issued
materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period in
order to conceal negative trends in the Company's business. The Company
also allegedly omitted to disclose that the Company was behind schedule
and experiencing cost overruns on several fixed-price defense
contracts. This led to the Company taking a significantly higher
material charge against 1999 third quarter earnings than was previously
announced.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company omitted to
disclose in its financial statements that it was violating generally
accepted accounting principles by prematurely recording revenue on
contingent sales contracts prior to actual performance. The Company
allegedly made these false and misleading statements in order to
artificially inflate the price of its stock to support the company's
acquisition of several companies using company stock as consideration.
As a result of defendants false and misleading statements, the price of
Company common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

The market first learned of the Company's misrepresentations and
omissions during several disclosures on October 12, 1999. The market
reaction to the news was disastrous. The price of Company Class A stock
lost more than 46% of its value; the price of Company Class B stock
lost more than 44% of its value, erasing almost $4.5 billion in market
value.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 1-888-4-POMLAW
(1-888-476-6529) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com. Those who inquire by e-
mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and voice
telephone number.  


SAN DIEGO: City Appeals Judge's Ruling On "Red Light Camera" Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of San Diego appealed a judge's ruling that threw out 260
traffic tickets issued by the city's "red light camera" system last
month.

In a decision about a month ago, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald
Styn ruled that evidence gathered by the city's red light camera system
was not admissible in court. He further said that City officials relied
too heavily on Lockheed Martin, a private, for-profit company, to
administer the cameras.

The city reportedly split a $140 fine for every ticket with Lockheed
Martin, creating a "conflict of interest" - as a result, the Company
did not have a stake in fixing problems with the system that might
result in unjust citations. Styn ruled that evidence from red-light
cameras were "untrustworthy and unreliable" and should not be used to
convict people of running the red light.

"We just disagree with him," Deputy City Attorney Steve Hansen said
Thursday. "He thought the evidence was unreliable. And we thought the
evidence was reliable."

Meanwhile, the city has suspended use of the 19 cameras spread
throughout San Diego. It also has commissioned an audit, asking an
independent company to evaluate the system and offer recommendations
for changes that could make evidence gathered by the cameras admissible
in court.

Christopher Plourd, one of the attorneys representing the defendants in
the case, speculated that the appeal is a delay tactic being used by
the city. "There's no public support for this system the way it was
being operated," Plourd said. "So they are going to have to make a
really strong case with the city council to get this back on line."

While the criminal cases are on appeal, several civil cases have been
filed in connection with the cameras. Nearly 600 claimants joined a
class-action lawsuit filed a month ago accusing Lockheed Martin of
unfair business practices in operating the system. The complaint
alleges Lockheed Martin abused the process of the courts by allowing
false evidence to be used to convict motorists.


SOUTH KOREA: Government To Set Criteria For Filing Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An official of South Korea's Ministry of Finance and Economy recently
announced that the government will require at least 50 persons claiming
injury to join together to file a class action suit against companies
for the alleged commission of stock-related irregularities, according
to a recent Asia Pulse report.

The official said the government believed that setting minimum criteria
will prevent abuse of the system.  Other criteria appearing in the
government's draft version are:

     (1) The number of representations any one person may make in a
         class action will be limited.

     (2) Class actions may be filed only against companies with at
         least two trillion won ($1.5 billion) in assets.

     (3) Only cases of stock price manipulation, window-dressing of
         financial statements and false public notification are subject
         to class action suits.

     (4) Persons who hold stock in a company may not represent
         plaintiffs in a suit against such company.

The government draft, soon to be presented to the current session of
the National Assembly, also allows the courts to actively collect
information and evidence before they make their decisions as to whether
the cases applying to be heard actually meet the requirements for
filing class action suits.


STEVE MADDEN: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class action suit
against Steven Madden Ltd. (NASDAQ: SHOO) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The action seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who purchased the Company's common stock
during the period between November 3, 1999 through and including June
20, 2000.

The lawsuit charges the Company and several of its officers with
violations of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and
financial condition during the Class Period.

The suit names as defendants:
     (1) Steven Madden, Ltd.;

     (2) Steve Madden, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer;

     (3) Rhonda Brown, the Company's Chief Operating Officer, Director
         and President; and

     (4) Arvind Dharia, the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
         Secretary and Director

On February 26, 2001, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint that extends the class period beyond November 3, 1999.
Accordingly, the action now seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of
Steve Madden common stock between June 21, 1997 and June 20, 2000 for
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

For more information, contact Alicia M. Duff by Mail: One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542-
1194 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bermanesq.com


TPST TECHNOLOGIES: Alleged Noisy Plant Operations Spur Couple's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A Baltimore couple sued TPS Technologies, Inc., an environmental clean-
up business, for allegedly ruining their neighborhood by creating noise
and vibrations in their soil sterilizing plant in Rosedale.

Marion and Nancy Benner filed the suit in Baltimore County Circuit
Court against the Company and its subsidiary, TPST Soil Recyclers,
saying, "It's unbelievable what this community has endured."

Vibrations from the plant allegedly shake the foundations of the
neighborhood's houses, "rattling their window panes, cracking porches,
steps, sidewalks, foundation walls, causing windows to break, and
causing furnishings to fall from the wall and shelves and break."

According to the complaint, the noise generally degraded the quality of
the Benners' lives by making it impossible for them and their neighbors
".to sleep while the plant is in operation."

Attorney Edward L. Blanton Jr., who represents the Benners, said
yesterday he has received statements by "40 to 50" neighbors
complaining of similar nuisances. The complaint asks the court to
declare the case a class action and permit residents within a one-mile
radius of the plant to join the suit. The suit also asks the court to
close the plant and compensate the plaintiffs for their losses.

State and company officials assert that they recently made efforts to
curtail noise in the plant, which uses jet engine-powered boilers to
sterilize soil contaminated by gasoline and oil spills. Company
spokesman Blair Dominak said the companies have spent "well over
$100,000 " to correct noise and vibration problems and have cut the
hours of operation at the plant, which employs about 10 workers.

Modifications included extending the smokestack by about 20 feet and
replacing liners in about 60 feet of the stack with softer, more sound-
absorbent liners, and putting up a sound barrier on the edge of the
property. The company also ceased operations at the plant between 10
p.m. and 6 a.m. daily, and ceased Sunday operations altogether. But
Nancy Benner is unconvinced saying that the Company reduced hours to
appease them and ". Eventually that is going to go back."

Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) manager George Harman concedes
that the plant's operations are noisy. He explained that the plant
receives contaminated soil from places such as old gas stations and
moves it around with front-end loaders and conveyor belts. The soil is
tumbled in a rotary drum to break up clumps and dry the soil
preliminarily, a process Harman said was noisy, as gravel and rocks
"bang" inside the drum. The soil then gets heated to 1,400 degrees
Fahrenheit, a heat that can't be reached using an ordinary burner,
Harman said. Instead, a jet engine at one end of the drum dries the
soil, while the vaporized fumes are burned inside a second jet engine.
"It's almost like two small jet engines operating out in the back
yard," Harman said.

The MDE entered into a voluntary compliance agreement with TPS
Technologies and TPST Soil Recyclers about 18 months ago, when area
residents complained about the noise and vibrations. The changes under
the agreement are the modifications that TPS spokesman Dominak
discussed, and MDE plans to begin testing the site next week to see if
the modifications have worked.


UNILAB CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue Relating To 1999 Recapitalization
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unilab Corporation faces a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
for federal securities violations.

Two former stockholders filed the suit against the Company and their
board of directors relating to the November 1999 Company
recapitalization.

The complaint alleges:

     (1) that the proxy statement relating to the Company's
         recapitalization contained material misrepresentations and
         omissions in violation of the federal proxy rules;

     (2) that approval of the terms of the recapitalization amounted to
         a breach of the fiduciary duties owed to the Company's
         stockholders by the Company's directors.

Both parties earlier negotiated a settlement in principle of the
action, subject to completion of confirmatory discovery and definitive
documentation relating to the settlement and court approval. However,
in November 2000, plaintiffs announced they would not agree to
consummate the settlement.

Last month, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, adding as
defendant BT Alex Brown, the investment banker that delivered a
fairness opinion in connection with the recapitalization. The complaint
asserts additional claims, including that the defendants brought the
company private in order to obtain large profits for themselves and
others, to the detriment of the public shareholders.

The Company labeled the allegations "without merit" but could not give
the assurance of a favorable outcome because the case is still in the
early stages of litigation.


VARI-L CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a securities class
action against Vari-L Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: VARL) in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. The action was brought on
behalf of all investors who purchased Vari-L common stock between
December 17, 1997 through and including July 6, 2000.

The lawsuit charges the Company and certain of its officers, with
violations of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading financial statements.

The Company, on May 17, 2000, revealed that it would be restating its
previously reported financial results for the period ended December 31,
1997, and potentially other periods as well. In addition, during the
Class Period, insiders sold massive amounts of stock, reaping
substantial proceeds as a result of the inflated value of Company's
stock.

After the Company's announcement, Company shares fell roughly $5 per
share from their May 16 close of $16.188, to close at $11.25 on May 22,
2000, a drop of roughly 35%, as the market fully absorbed the impact of
these disclosures.

For more details, contact Patrick Egan by Mail: One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542-1194 by E-
mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com


WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of Winstar Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:WCIEQ) securities
during the period between August 2, 2000 and April 2, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The Company allegedly issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Winstar securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the
company's business performance throughout the class period. According
to the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants repeatedly
assured investors that the company was performing well, that the
company was enjoying strong growth, and that it was well-funded to
follow its growth-oriented business plan through the first quarter of
2002.  At the same time, however, the complaint alleges that the
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Winstar was overstating
its revenues and assets.
On April 2, 2001, the Company disclosed that it would be filing its
annual Report on Form 10-K late. On April 5, 2001, contrary to prior
representations, Winstar announced that it was halting its expansion
plans and laying off 2,000 employees. The decline in the value of
Winstar common stock has been extraordinary, with the stock closing at
$0.40 per share on April 6, 2001. The stock traded as high as $32.00
per share during the Class Period.

The Company is now in bankruptcy.

For more details, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Robert Smits by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail address:
afriedman@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.cmht.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  * * *