CAR_Public/011010.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 10, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 198

                          Headlines


ADAPTEC INC.: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
ADAPTIVE BROADBAND: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
AUDIBLE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in CA
DQE INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in W.D.Pennsylvania

ENGAGE INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
INTERNET SECURITY: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges N.D. GA Securities Suit
INTERNET SECURITY: Cauley Geller Commences N.D. GA Securities Suits
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MARIMBA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

METROMEDIA FIBER: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
METROMEDIA FIBER: Wolf Haldenstein Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit   
MEXICAN BRACEROS: Mexico, U.S. Banks Face Withheld Wages Lawsuit
NETZERO INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PERRY JOHNSON: Sued By Internet Company For Unsolicited Fax Ads

PURCHASEPRO.COM: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit in Nevada
ROBOTIC VISION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in Massachusetts
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates GA Securities Suit
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Weiss Yourman Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit

UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Cauley Geller Commences NY Securities Suit
U.S. INTERACTIVE: Milberg Weiss Initiates E.D. PA Securities Suit
U.S. WIRELESS: Weiss Yourman Commenced Securities Suit in N.D. CA
VENTRO CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates CA Securities Suit
Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY


                          *********


ADAPTEC INC.: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Adaptec, Inc. common stock between April 29, 1997 and
January 8, 1998. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, charges the Company and several of its
officers and directors with violations of Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that the defendants represented to the investing
public that the present and future business and financial prospects of
the Company were not only stable but in a stage of explosive growth.
The defendants allegedly did this so that they could sell over
$34,590,000 of their own holdings in the Company at artificially
inflated prices.

The defendants were allegedly only able to exceed analysts' earnings
estimates and report quarter-to-quarter earnings growth by failing to
take required write-offs associated with accounts receivable and
obsolete technology. As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements and/or omissions, the Company's stock traded as
high as $53 3/16 per share.

On Jan. 8, 1998, the Company ultimately revealed to the financial
community it would suffer an enormous revenue shortfall for its third
quarter, ended Dec. 31, 1997.  As a result of these disclosures, the
price of the Company's common stock plummeted from $35 15/16, on
January 8, 1998, to $21 9/16 on January 9, 1998 on volume of 26,982,700
shares -- a drop of 40% in one day and a drop of approximately 60% from
the stock's high of $53 3/16 on October 7, 1997.

For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman by Mail: 10940 Wilshire
Blvd, 24th floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024 by Phone: (310)208-2800 or 1-
800-437-7918 (toll-free) or by E-mail: wyinfo@wyca.com.


ADAPTIVE BROADBAND: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Adaptive Broadband Corporation
(NASDAQ:ADAP) publicly traded securities during the period between
August 11, 2000 and March 15, 2001. The suit, filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, charges
the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


On March 15, 2001, the Company announced that it would restate its Q4
2000 financial statements because of accounting misstatements. In a
press release, the company reduced their revenue and cost of revenue by
$4 million relating to a sales transaction recorded during the quarter
that should not have been recognized. On this news, Adaptive's stock
price dropped to as low as $1.47 per share, or more than 95% from its
class period high of $33.125.

The Company supplies terrestrial wireless and satellite-based systems
to support ultra-high speed Internet access, broadcast digital TV
transport and worldwide Internet backbones. The Company also provides
solutions for satellite-based data communication and terrestrial
wireless telemetry networks.

For more information, contact Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
by Mail: Attention: Confidential Inquiries, 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite
4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071 by Phone: 213/617-9007 by Fax: 213/617-9185
or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


AUDIBLE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Audible, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADBL)
securities between July 16, 1999 and June 11, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and names as defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Andrew J. Huffman,

     (3) Donald R. Katz,

     (4) Andrew P. Kaplan,

     (5) Richard Brass,

     (6) R. Bradford Burnham,

     (7) W. Bingham Gordon,

     (8) Thomas P. Hirschfeld,

     (9) Winthrop Knowlton, and

    (10) Timothy Mott,

    (11) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

    (12) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,

    (13) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company, LLC, and

    (14) Wit Capital Corporation

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company allegedly issued a registration statement and prospectus  
that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.  

The prospectus was issued in connection to the Company's initial public
offering of 4,000,000 shares of common stock, at $9.00 per share on
July 16, 1999. The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and
misleading because it failed to disclose:

     (i) the underwriters' agreement with certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Company shares in
         the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed
         commissions; and

    (ii) the agreement between the underwriters and certain of its
         customers whereby the underwriters would allocate shares in
         the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase Company shares in the after-market at
         pre-determined prices.
         
For further 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: ADBL@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit against Broadcom Corporation (Nasdaq: BRCM) in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit was filed on behalf of all those persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of Broadcom during the period July 31, 2000
through March 6, 2001, inclusive, and names as defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Henry T. Nicholas III, Chief Executive Officer,

     (3) William J. Ruehle, Chief Financial Officer, and

     (4) Henry Samueli, Chief Technology Officer

The Complaint charges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 by issuing materially false
financial results which had been artificially inflated through the use
of egregious accounting manipulations.

Specifically, during its acquisitions of several companies during the
class period, the Company cajoled these companies to obtain customer
commitments to buy products in exchange for warrants. The Company
assumed the warrant obligations in the acquisitions. Thus, as the
customers met their purchase commitments, the warrants vested, and they
could be exchanged for the Company shares.

The suit alleges that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
require that these warrants, which were basically discounts on
products, should have been deducted as an expense against Company
sales. The defendants, however, violated GAAP by classifying the
warrant expense as goodwill, thereby artificially inflating the
Company's financial results.

On February 27, 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that accountants
and analysts were questioning the Company's accounting practice
concerning the warrants, and quoted an accounting expert as stating:
"There's reason to question the legitimacy of that revenue and net
income," and that "[i]n all cases, the warrants should be discounted
from revenue."

The market reaction to the February 27, 2001 disclosure was swift and
adverse, with the price of Broadcom common stock falling 15% to close
at $53.625 on February 27, 2001, as compared to the previous day's
closing price of $63.00.

Then, after the close of market on March 6, 2001, the Company admitted
that it may change its accounting for warrants and materially revised
downwards its forecasts for the first quarter of 2001 and the full 2001
year.  The Company's stock price dropped further, closing at $40.25 on
March 7, 2001.

The suit further alleges that defendants Nicholas, Ruehle and Samueli
benefited by selling $45.8 million worth of their holdings in the
Company at inflated prices.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan, 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


DQE INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in W.D.Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of DQE, Inc.
(NYSE:DQE) between December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001, inclusive

The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania, against the Company and Chief Executive
Officer David Marshall.

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 December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint also alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued positive statements concerning the significant and
positive impact that DQE Enterprises, Inc., the Company's investment
subsidiary, was having on the Company's financial results.

During this time, the market for initial public offerings had
dramatically slowed down. Accordingly, the ability of the companies in
DQE Enterprises' investment portfolio to go public was substantially
impaired.

Defendants, however, issued a stream of positive statements concerning
the Company's operations and prospects, but allegedly failed to
disclose the impaired nature of DQE Enterprises' investments and that
the Company would not realize the investment gains that defendants had
caused the market to expect.

As a result, defendants' estimates, projections and opinions as to the
Company's operations, products, earnings and income were knowingly
lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

This information became publicly known on April 30, 2001, when DQE
reported its earnings for the first quarter of 2001 and revised its
earnings outlook for the full year, based in part, on the weakened
outlook for DQE Enterprises.

In response to this negative announcement, when trading resumed on May
1, 2001, the price of DQE common stock dropped from $30.43 per share to
$23.75 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

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: DQEcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


ENGAGE INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a class action suit on
behalf of purchasers of Engage, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENGA) securities during
the period between July 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Paul L. Schaut,

     (3) Stephen A. Royal,

     (4) David S. Wetherell,

     (5) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (6) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.

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 July 19, 1999, the Company commenced an initial public
offering of 6 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $15.00 per share.

In connection therewith, Engage filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: 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


INTERNET SECURITY: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges N.D. GA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Internet Security Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ISSX) from April 1, 2001 through July 2, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.The complaint charges the defendants with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on April 18, 2001, the Company
reported its 23rd consecutive quarter of growth.  For the first quarter
of 2001, it claimed revenues in excess of $61 million and net income of
$6.5 million or $0.15 per share.

The Company claimed that the Company's "financial performance continued
to show strength and our solid execution and focus on expense control
enabled us to meet our profit guidance provided at the beginning of the
quarter." The Company also stated that its guidance for the second
quarter ending June 30, 2001 was to produce revenues between $64 and
$67 million and earnings in the range of $0.15 per diluted share, even
though defendants allegedly knew they could not achieve these numbers.

The Company further claimed that "the public can continue to rely on
the expectations published in its earnings release and web site as
being its current expectations on matters covered, unless ISS publishes
a notice stating otherwise."

The Defendants, who were in control of the Company during the class
period, allegedly knew that their business was slowing down, because
they received financial reports on a frequent basis, and knew that they
had too many employees in view of the slowdown.

After the quarter ended, the Company stated that management expected
revenues in the range of $50-52 million, not $64-67 million, and a loss
per diluted share between $0.00 to $0.02, rather than earnings of $0.15
to $0.16.

Just after the July 18, 2001 press conference in which the Company
released its actual numbers, and admitted that it had over hired and
over indulged on fringe benefits, travel and entertainment, they laid
off 12% of its work force. This confirmed what its executives had known
or recklessly disregarded throughout the class period, that it had too
many employees and greater expenses than it could afford, given its
level of sales.

Purchasers of Company shares during the class period, when ISS told
them they could rely on its guidance, found out on the morning of July
3, 2001 that ISS had tumbled more than 40 percent.

For more information, contact Marc Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


INTERNET SECURITY: Cauley Geller Commences N.D. GA Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:
ISSX) securities traded between April 1, 2001 and July 2, 2001,
inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
claiming the defendants made materially false and misleading
representations regarding the Company's revenues and earnings for the
first and second quarters of fiscal year 2001, which artificially
inflated the price of Company stock.  

Specifically, the complaint charges that on April 18, 2001, the Company
reported its 23rd consecutive quarter of growth. For the first quarter
of 2001, it claimed revenues in excess of $61 million and net income of
$6.5 million or $0.15 per share.  

The Company claimed that their "financial performance continued to
show strength and our solid execution and focus on expense control
enabled us to meet our profit guidance provided at the beginning of the
quarter."  The Company claimed that its guidance for the second quarter
ending June 30, 2001 was to produce revenues between $64 and $67
million and earnings in the range of $0.15 per diluted share, even
though defendants allegedly knew they could not achieve these numbers.  

The Company also claimed in its April 18, 2001 press release that "the
public can continue to rely on the expectations published in its
earnings release and web site as being its current expectations on
matters covered, unless ISS publishes a notice stating otherwise."  

Defendants, who were in control of the Company during the class period,
knew that their business was slowing down, because they received
financial reports on a frequent basis, and knew that they had too many
employees in view of the slowdown. On July 2, 2001, after the quarter
had ended, the Company issued a press release in which it stated that
management expected revenues in the range of $50-52 million, not $64-67
million, and a loss per diluted share between $0.00 to $0.02, rather
than earnings of $0.15 to $0.16.  

The Company then revealed its actual numbers in a press release, and
admitted that it had over hired and over indulged on fringe benefits,
travel and entertainment.

The Company laid off 12% of its work force, confirming what its
executives had allegedly known or recklessly disregarded throughout the
class period, that it had too many employees and greater expenses than
it could afford, given its level of sales.  

Purchasers of the Company's shares during the class period, when the
Company told them they could rely on its guidance, found out on the
morning of July 3, 2001 that the stock had fallen more than 40%.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: 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


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Keynote Systems,
Inc. (NASDAQ: KEYN) between September 24, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants:

     (1) Keynote Systems, Inc.,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Umang Gupta and

     (4) John Flavio.

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 September 24, 1999, the Company commenced an initial public
offering (IPO) of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $14 per share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose that:

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

    (ii) BancBoston had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         BancBoston agreed to allocate Company shares to those
         customers in the 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
Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: Keynotecase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com/keynote


MARIMBA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit  
commenced on behalf of purchasers of Marimba, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRBA)
securities between April 30, 1999 and March 27, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Kim K. Polese,

     (2) Fred M. Gerson,

     (3) Arthur A. van Hoff,

     (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (5) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, and

     (6) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.

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

The Company allegedly issued 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 Marimba's initial public
offering of 4 million shares of common stock at $20.00 per share that
was completed on April 30, 1999. The complaint alleges that the
Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose:

     (i) the underwriters' agreement with certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Company shares in
         the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed  
         commissions; and

    (ii) the agreement between the underwriters and certain of its
         customers whereby the underwriters would allocate shares in
         the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase shares in the after-market at pre-
         determined prices

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


METROMEDIA FIBER: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc Henzel initiated a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Metromedia Fiber Network,
Inc. (Nasdaq: MFNX) securities between January 8, 2001 and July 2,
2001. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001. These misrepresentations
artificially inflated the price of the company's securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued multiple
press releases announcing the Company's receipt of a $350 million
credit facility from Citicorp USA, Inc. The arrangement would enable
the Company to complete the construction of an extensive fiber optic
network.  These statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Citicorp credit facility was contingent on the receipt of
         additional commitments for which the Company was experiencing
         difficulty obtaining;

     (2) that without obtaining the credit facility the further
         development of the Company's fiber optic network would be
         significantly delayed.

So, when on July 2, 2001, the Company revealed for the first time that
the commitment letter from Citicorp was subject to the receipt of
commitments from other lenders, the price of Company securities
plummeted.

For more information, contact: Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (610)
660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website:  http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


METROMEDIA FIBER: Wolf Haldenstein Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit   
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (Nasdaq:
MFNX) between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001, inclusive. The suit was
lodged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to
the market between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001. These
misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of Company
securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued multiple
press releases announcing the Company's receipt of a $350 million
credit facility from Citicorp USA, Inc. The funds would enable the
Company to complete the construction of an extensive fiber optic
network.  These statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Citicorp credit facility was contingent on the receipt of
         additional commitments for which the Company was experiencing
         difficulty obtaining;

     (2) that without obtaining the credit facility the further
         development of the Company's fiber optic network would be
         significantly delayed

When, on July 2, 2001, the Company revealed for the first time that the
commitment letter from Citicorp was subject to the receipt of
commitments from other lenders, the price of Company securities
dropped.

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


MEXICAN BRACEROS: Mexico, U.S. Banks Face Withheld Wages Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican braceros, participants in a formal Mexican guest worker program
during World War II, filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in
San Francisco, charging alleged breach of contract.

Attorneys representing the braceros say damages in the case could
easily soar into the hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a
recent Associated Press report.

The issue set forth in the lawsuit, stemmed from a contract devised by
the two governments, the United States and Mexico, which required the
growers/employers to withhold 10 percent of the salaries of the guest
workers.  

The withheld monies were to be transferred, through American and
Mexican banks, back to Mexico, where accounts would be established for
the contributing braceros.

The contract stated that the Mexican government would use the money to
buy farm equipment for the returned braceros or give back the money to
them.  Mexico neither purchased farm equipment nor returned the money
to the guest workers, the class-action suit claims.

To seek these past debts, attorneys representing the braceros have sued
the governments of the United States and Mexico, as well as banks in
the two countries, including Wells Fargo Bank, the Bank of Mexico and
Banco de Credito Rural (Rural Credit Bank).

The lawsuit filed by four American law firms on behalf of 500,000
Mexican guest workers alleges that the banks and governments should be
liable for the 10 percent to 20 percent deductions that were not
returned to the braceros for a period covering 1941 to 1949.

The withheld funds could amount to $60 or $70 million, excluding
interest; a successful lawsuit could net between $10,000 to $20,000 per
bracero, said Jonathan Rothstein, an attorney with the Chicago law firm
of Gessler, Hughes & Socol.  

"When I learned about it, it struck me as a historic injustice," said
Rothstein.

Manuel Garci y Griego, a historian and director of Mexican American
Studies at the University of Texas in Arlington, said that there is
considerable evidence that illegal deductions were taken out of the
guest workers' paychecks even after 1949.


NETZERO INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NetZero, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NZRO) between September 24, 1999 and September 28, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, names as defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Mark R. Goldston,

     (3) Charles S. Hilliard,

     (4) Ronald T. Burr,

     (5) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (6) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

     (7) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

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

On September 24, 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering
of 10 million 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 Securities and Exchange
Commission. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among
other things, that:

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

    (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby they agreed to allocate Company shares to those
         customers in the 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: netzerocase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


PERRY JOHNSON: Sued By Internet Company For Unsolicited Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seminar organizer Perry Johnson faces a nationwide class action lawsuit
in San Mateo County Superior Court of California over unsolicited fax
advertisements. Hypertouch, Inc., a Redwood City-based Internet service
provider, filed the suit naming the Company and "100 John Does" as
defendants.

The suit alleges that the Missouri-based Company sent unsolicited
advertisements or junk faxes about their seminars to Hypertouch "on 16
different occasions."

"It's a violation of federal law to send a fax to anyone with whom you
don't have a prior business relationship," explained John L. Fallat,
the Marin County attorney who represents Hypertouch.

Fallat stated that Perry Johnson was previously cited by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) but they have continued to engage in
their "illegal and obnoxious behavior."

Hypertouch wants the court to:

     (1) declare that the Defendant's acts and practices described
         herein constitute a violation of the Telephone Consumer
         Protection Act of 1991;

     (2) award damages on behalf of the plaintiff as the result of a
         violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, in
         the amount of $500.00;

     (3) award damages on behalf of the Plaintiff as a result of a   
         willful and knowing violation of the Telephone Consumer
         Protection Act of 1991, in the amount of $1,000.00;

     (4) award the plaintiff all costs of court and attorney fees;

     (5) grant injunctive relief, prohibiting the Defendants from
         violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and

     (6) grant such further legal and equitable relief as the Court
         deems appropriate and just

For more information, contact Bruce Lewis of Lewis & Summers Public
Relations for The Law Offices Of John L. Fallat by Phone: 1-707-937-
3600 or by E-mail: bruce@prwebsite.com.

John L. Fallat can also be reached by Phone: 1-415-457-3773, or by E-
mail: jfallat@fallat.com


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman commenced a class action complaint on behalf of
purchasers of PurchasePro.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: PPRO) securities between
July 19, 2000, and April 25, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada and charges the Company and certain officers/directors with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The suit alleges that the defendants made numerous positive
representations regarding the financial and business prospects of the
Company. The defendants made these alleged misrepresentations while
knowing that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue to
artificially inflate the trading value of Company securities for their
own personal benefit.

The suit further alleges that the defendants set out on a scheme to
artificially inflate PurchasePro's stock price so that they could
maintain their lucrative positions and earn ill-gotten gains through
their insider trading practices. As a result of defendants' alleged
false statements, misrepresentations, and omissions, the price of the
Company's securities was artificially inflated during the class period.

In fact, the Company's securities closed as high as $44.95 on September  
2000, and stayed at an artificially inflated level until the Company
disclosed its dismal financial condition on or about April 25, 2001.
These disclosures caused the stock price of the Company to plummet
approximately 35% in one day from $6.22 to $4.05 on April 25, 2001, on
volume of over 11 million shares.

For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman by Mail: 10940 Wilshire
Blvd, 24th floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024 by Phone: (310)208-2800 or 1-
800-437-7918 (toll-free) or by E-mail: wyinfo@wyca.com.


ROBOTIC VISION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Robotic Vision
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROBV) between January 27, 2000 and May 15, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, names the Company and Company executives, Pat V. Costa
and Frank D. Edwards, as defendants.

The suit 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 between January 27, 2000 and May 15,
2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's
securities.

Specifically, the Company repeatedly issued press releases portraying
itself as a growing company experiencing higher sales in its various
divisions. On May 15, 2001, defendants announced that it would be
delaying the filing of its form 10-Q with the SEC for the second
quarter of 2001. The delay was credited to the fact it was restating
its financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 and
for the three month period ended December 31, 2000, to correct certain
accounting issues related to the recognition of revenue at its Acuity
CiMatrix division. In response to this shocking announcement, Company
shares tumbled almost 15%.

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: roboticvisioncase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates GA Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
(NYSE: SFA) securities between April 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001.

The case, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Atlanta, names as defendants the Company and two of its
executive officers, Wallace G. Haislip and James F. McDonald.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint also alleges that defendants issued to the
investing public false and misleading financial information that
materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects. Moreover,
the Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make
its prior statements not misleading regarding the financial results of
its third fiscal quarter.

For example, on May 11, 2001, in a Form 10-Q that was filed with the
Securities & Exchange Commission, defendants reported "record"
financial results with bookings, sales, backlog and cash each setting
all-time records. Defendants also touted the Company's increase in
production capacity of set-tops. As a result of these alleged
misrepresentations, the price of Scientific Atlanta common stock was
artificially inflated.

However, on July 19, 2001, when defendants reported Scientific-
Atlanta's financial results for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2001, they
shocked the market by reporting a 21% decline in bookings from the
previous year's fourth quarter. This decline in bookings was
attributable to, among other things, a surplus in customer inventory
levels, which defendants knew of, or should have known of, at the time
they filed the Company's Form 10-Q on May 11, 2001. Accordingly, the
representations in the Form 10-Q regarding production capacity were
materially false and misleading.

Additionally, the Company announced that it was revising its earnings
estimates for the first quarter of fiscal 2002. The market reaction to
this announcement was immediate and punitive, as shares of Scientific-
Atlanta plummeted by more than 34%, or $12.08, to close at $23 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

The individual defendants allegedly took advantage of the artificially
inflated price of the Company's stock to sell hundreds of thousands of
their own shares of Scientific-Atlanta stock for proceeds of over $46
million.

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


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Weiss Yourman Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a securities class action on behalf of purchasers
who acquired Transmeta Corporation (NASDAQ:TMTA) securities between
November 7, 2000 and June 20, 2001, inclusive. The suit, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, names as
defendants Transmeta Corporation and its top officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company develops and sells software-based microprocessors. The
Company's family of Crusoe microprocessors is targeted at the notebook
and Internet appliance segments of the Mobile Internet Computer market.

The Company completed its initial public offering (IPO), pursuant to a
registration statement and prospectus, on November 7, 2000.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and its principal line of
microprocessors, the Crusoe.

More specifically, the complaint charges that defendants falsely
claimed the Crusoe line's technology included a revolutionary process
that provided longer battery life in Mobile Internet Computers while
delivering high performance.  The complaint further alleges these false
statements caused the Company's stock price to be artificially
elevated, allowing the defendants to reap over $14 million in insider
profits within the two months prior to the Company revealing the truth
about Transmeta's worsening financial position.

The Complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct,
plaintiffs and other members of the Class suffered damages.

For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman by Mail: 10940 Wilshire
Blvd., 24th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90024 by Phone: (310) 208-2800 by
Fax: (310) 209.2348 by E-mail: info@wyca.com



UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Cauley Geller Commences NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action on behalf of
purchasers of Internet Infrastructure HOLDRs Depositary Receipts (Amex:
IIH) securities during the period between February 24, 2000 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Incorporated, and Merrill Lynch
& Co.

The complaint alleges that the Internet Infrastructure Depositary
Receipts were "basket securities" whose price was directly related to,
and moved with, the price of 20 underlying securities held in the
Internet Infrastructure HOLDRs trust. The complaint further alleges
that defendants violated securities laws by selling Internet
Infrastructure HOLDRs Depositary Receipts in the February 24, 2000 IPO,
pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus that were
materially false and misleading.

The documents reportedly failed to disclose that a substantial
proportion of the Internet Infrastructure HOLDRs trust's initial
portfolio consisted of artificially inflated stocks. The stock
allegedly was inflated through the improper practices relating to the
underwriter's initial public offering.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: Investor 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/pr/internet--infrastructure.pdf


U.S. INTERACTIVE: Milberg Weiss Initiates E.D. PA Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP raised a class action lawsuit
on February 28, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of U.S.
Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:USITQ) between February 10, 2000 and November
8, 2000, inclusive. The suit, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, names as defendants:

     (1) Stephen T. Zarrilli,

     (2) Eric Pulier and

     (3) John D. Shulman

U.S. Interactive was not named as a defendant because it filed for
bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

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 defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between February 10, 2000 and November 8, 2000, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.  Specifically,
defendants repeatedly represented that the Company was experiencing
strong growth and indicated that the Company was capable of achieving
profitability by the end of the year.

However, at the time these statements were being made, defendants
allegedly knew them to be false because:

     (i) an $80 million note issued by the Company as part of its
         SoftPlus acquisition was causing a large burden which would
         prevent the Company from achieving profitability;

    (ii) the Company was being adversely affected by its financially-
         strapped dot-com customers; and

   (iii) the Company was being adversely affected by the lengthening of
         the sales cycle

On September 20, 2000, the Company warned that its third-quarter
financial results would be lower than originally expected due to rapid
changes in the Internet professional services market. These changes
included longer sales cycles, re-evaluation of e-business initiatives
by clients and prospects, and reduced funding available to dot-com
clients.

In response to this disclosure, the Company's stock dropped over 33%
from the prior day's closing price, on record volume of 2,105,500
shares, to close at $12.937. During the class period, Company stock
traded as high as $50. This disclosure, however, did not reveal the
full extent of the Company's problems.

On November 8, 2000, the Company announced its third quarter
performance and disclosed that its third quarter financial results were
worse than the Company had pre-announced on September 20, 2000.
The Company also revealed that they wrote-off $8.8 million in
unrecoverable accounts receivable during the third quarter, primarily
related to services performed for dot-com organizations. Following this
full disclosure, the Company's stock dropped further on high volume of
1.5 million shares, to close at $0.81 per share.

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


U.S. WIRELESS: Weiss Yourman Commenced Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman has filed a class action complaint on behalf of all
persons who acquired U.S. Wireless Corp. (NASDAQ:USWC, USWCE)
securities between June 29, 1999 and May 25, 2001, inclusive. The
complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, charges that U.S. Wireless Corp. and its then-CEO Oliver
Hilsenrath violated federal securities laws.

The defendants allegedly failed to reveal that Hilsenrath and the
Company's general counsel made cash payments and issued stock and stock
options to outside vendors affiliated with Hilsenrath. These
transactions were never disclosed to the investing public.

On May 26, 2001, the Company disclosed that an investigation by the
Audit Committee of the Board of Directors had uncovered various
irregularities relating to these transactions.  The Company further
indicated that these irregularities could have a material effect on the
Company's historical financial results and could require restatement of
previously issued financial statements. It was further announced that
as a result of the investigation The Board of Directors terminated
Hilsenrath for cause.

On May 29, 2001, Nasdaq halted trading on U.S. Wireless shares at
$2.91, 94% lower than the Class Period high of $52.50.

The Complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct,
plaintiff and other members of the class suffered damages.

For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman by Mail: 10940 Wilshire
Blvd, 24th floor, Los Angeles CA 90024 by Phone: (310) 208-2800 by Fax:
(310)209.2348 or by E-mail: info@wyca.com


VENTRO CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates CA Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Ventro Corp. (NASDAQ: VNTR)
securities between February 15, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  The case,
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, names as defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) David P. Perry,

     (3) James G. Stewart,

     (4) Robin A. Abrams,

     (5) William C. Klintworth, Jr.,

     (6) Martha D. Greer,

     (7) David A. Weber, and

     (8) James S. Wambach.

The Company styled itself as an architect and operator of platforms for
vertical business-to-business (b2b) e-commerce marketplace companies.  

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that as early as December 1999,
defendants were aware that the Company's business model was unworkable.  
Moreover, defendants were allegedly aware that the Company did not
possess the technology to successfully compete as an independent
marketplace and that this would severely impair the Company's future
revenue growth.  

However, the defendants continued to make positive but allegedly false
statements about future business and revenue potential in order to
permit the Company to successfully complete a series of debt offerings.    
As a result of the dissemination of these false and misleading
statements, the Company's stock traded as high as $243 per share during
the class period.
          
The truth began to be disclosed in December 2000 when the Company
announced that it was restructuring and that it was closing down two of
its three main B2B marketplaces. In early 2001, the Company disclosed
that its CEO and other executives realized that its business model of
independent marketplaces was not viable and that their partners were
unhappy with their technology for operating marketplaces.  

The Company's share price has declined 99% from its class period high
and Company shares closed at $0-15/32 per share on April 3, 2001.

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


Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Z-TEL Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ZTEL) securities between December 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) D. Gregory Smith,

     (2) John M. Hutchens,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The defendants
allegedly issued a registration statement and prospectus that contained
materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose
material information.  

The prospectus was issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering of 6,000,000 shares of common stock, at $17.00 per
share on December 16, 1999. 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 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 Company shares in the after-market at
         pre-determined prices

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: ZTEL@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  * * *