CAR_Public/011011.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 11, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 199


                           Headlines


AMERICAN AIRLINES: TWA Retirees Sue To Maintain Free Flying Benefits
ANICOM INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
ART TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Raises Securities Suit in Massachusetts
ASPECT MEDICAL: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BAKER HUGHES: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX

BORON LEPORE: Enters Agreement To Settle New Jersey Securities Suit
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
CAPROCK COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in TX
CLARENT CORPORATION: Mark McNair Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CONAGRA FOODS: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in Nebraska

CYBER-CARE INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences S.D. FL Securities Suit
DIGITAS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
DT INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses MO Securities Suit Without Prejudice
HUMAN SHIELDS: Americans Sue Iraqi Government For Human Rights Abuse
INTEL CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

INTERNET SECURITY: Holzer Holzer Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
INTERNET SECURITY: Cauley Geller Initiates N.D. GA Securities Suit
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in NY
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MARY MEEKER: Court Dismisses Eight Securities Suits With Prejudice

NIKU CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ONYX SOFTWARE:  Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in Securities Suit
ONYX SOFTWARE: Mark McNair Initiates W.D. Washington Securities Suit
OUACHITA PARISH: Louisiana Residents Sue Over Encephalitis Outbreak
VIRAGE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York



                           *********


AMERICAN AIRLINES: TWA Retirees Sue To Maintain Free Flying Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Retirees of bankrupt TWA Airlines LLC filed a suit against American
Airlines, Inc. and its parent company AMR Corp., alleging the airline
failed to deliver on a promise to maintain their free flying benefits.

Retirees Ricky Martin and Patti Frazier filed the suit in the U.S.
District Court in Dallas, and are seeking class-action status to
represent other retired TWA employees. The plaintiffs are asking that
their free flying passes, awarded upon retirement from St. Louis-based
TWA, be reinstated.

The suit claims that American Airlines had promised that their free
flying passes would be honored along with other benefits when the
Company acquired TWA. The airline allegedly revoked these passes when
the Company filed documents related to TWA's bankruptcy.

Steve Gardner, attorney for the plaintiffs, claimed that the airline
said they would honor retirement benefits to ".attain the union's
cooperation. Either they changed their minds or they were lying, one of
the two. They made a promise, and they didn't keep the promise,"
Gardner said.

He further emphasized that such passes wouldn't be a financial burden
for the airline. "Passes cost airlines virtually nothing. These are not
positive space -- you just show up and hope you get a flight," he said.
"These are people who had years of service, a couple decades. The cost
is the incremental cost of fuel for a 110-pound flight attendant. There
is no cost, other than the cost of jet fuel. They don't even get to
eat."

American Airlines declined to comment on the suit.


ANICOM INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP lodged a class action suit
against Anicom, Inc. (Nasdaq: ANIC) and three of the Company's senior
executives. The case was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from February 24, 1998 to July
18, 2000, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The defendants allegedly
issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning:

     (1) the Company's 1998 and 1999 financial results,

     (2) the strength of the Company's balance sheet and financial
         condition, and

     (3) statements concerning the Company's ability to reach quarterly
         results and analyst estimates.

These statements were materially false and misleading since they were
attributable to improper accounting practices which resulted in
overstatement of net assets in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles. As a result of the Company's materially false
and misleading statements, the market price of their common stock was
artificially inflated during the class period.

On July 18, 2000, the Company revealed to the market that it was
investigating possible "accounting irregularities" which could result
in a revision of its 1998 and 1999 financial statements. It is
currently believed that the total effect of these accounting revisions
and charges could be as much as $35 million.

Thereafter, the Company's president and chief financial officer took
administrative leave pending completion of the Company's investigation.
Following the announcement, the price of common stock fell 80% and
trading was halted.

For more information, 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

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


ART TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Raises Securities Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Art Technology
Group Inc. (NASDAQ: ARTG) between January 25, 2001 and April 2, 2001
inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company, Chief Executive
Officer Jeet Singh and Chairman of the Board Joseph T. Chung.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 25, 2001 and April 2, 2001.

The suit specifically alleges that the Company stated in press releases
and public interviews that it was not subject to the negative trends in
the software industry which were effecting the Company's competitors
and that its strong revenue growth was not, and would not be,
materially affected by the downturn in the technology sector.

It is alleged that these statements were knowingly false and misleading
because many Art Technology Group clients were technology companies
that were negatively impacted by the widespread decrease in technology
spending which was underway before the Class Period began, and that
many of these customers could not afford to pay the Company for its
products.

In April 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing that it
will incur a loss of $0.19 to $0.22 per share for the quarter ending
March 30, 2001, which was well below expectations. In response to this
announcement, the Company's stock price dropped to $5.3125, or 55%,
from the prior day's close of $12 per share, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

Prior to the disclosure of the true facts about the Company's business,
company insiders sold a total of over $8.7 million of their personally-
held stock.

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


ASPECT MEDICAL: 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 Aspect Medical
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:ASPM) between January 28, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about January 28, 2000 the Company commenced an initial public
offering of 3,500,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering
price of $15 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a
registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.
The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

    (ii) Morgan Stanley had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby Morgan Stanley agreed to allocate Aspect Medical
         shares to those customers in the Aspect Medical IPO in
         exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         Aspect Medical 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 Email: aspectcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


BAKER HUGHES:  Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
suit against Baker Hughes, Inc. (NYSE: BHI) and two of the Company's
senior officers.  The case was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from May 3, 1999 to December 8, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Baker Hughes violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly:

     (1) issuing materially false and misleading statements during the
         class period regarding the Company's financial and operational
         health;

     (2) incorporating materially overstated earnings of the Company's
         INTEQ drilling unit into its consolidated financial
         statements.

This overstatement enabled Baker Hughes to materially inflate reported
earnings during the Class Period in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the price
of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated during the
class period.  The Company then announced that it would restate its
prior financial statements as a result of accounting violations at its
INTEQ drilling unit which would cost the Company between $40 and $50
million and postpone a $200 million note offering. The market reaction
to the news was disastrous. The price of Baker Hughes common stock lost
more than 50% of its value.

For more information, 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

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


BORON LEPORE: Enters Agreement To Settle New Jersey Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boron, LePore & Associates, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLPG) entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the shareholder class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

A company stockholder filed the suit in May 25,1999 against the Company
and:

     (1) LePore and Associates, Inc.

     (2) Patrick G. LePore,

     (3) Gregory F. Boron,

     (4) Timothy J. McIntyre,

     (5) Martin Veilleux,

     (6) Robert Kafker,

     (7) Jacqueline C. Morby,

     (8) TA Investors, Ltd. Partnership,

     (9) TA Associates VII, L.P.,

    (10) TA Associates, Inc.,

    (11) TA Associates AAP III,

    (12) Advent VII,

    (13) Associates VII, L.P.,

    (14) Advent Atlantic and Pacific III, L.P.,

    (15) Bear Stearns and Co., Inc., and

    (16) Smith Barney, Inc

The suit alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions in certain
public disclosures related to:

     (i) the secondary offering made by the Company in May 1998,

    (ii) the Company's acquisition of Decision Point, Inc. in January
         1998,

   (iii) the termination of the Company's relationship with Glaxo-
         Wellcome, and

    (iv) the impact of various events on the Company's earnings.

In February 2000 the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims
asserted against it and its officers and directors. The court granted
to motion to dismiss with respect to the claims asserted against
defendants 6-16, as mentioned above while it denied the motion to
dismiss asserted against defendants 1-5.

The proposed settlement will result in the release of all claims
against the Company and its current and former officers and directors.
The proposed settlement is subject to several significant conditions:

     (a) the negotiation and execution of definitive documentation,

     (b) satisfaction by the Company that the settlement agreement
         includes the appropriate class members, and

     (c) preliminary and final approval by the Court.

The proposed settlement is no admission of liability by the Company or
its current or former officers or directors and will be funded by
payment from the Company's insurance carriers.

Boron, LePore & Associates, Inc. provides sales, promotional and
medical education services to the pharmaceutical industry.


BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP lodged a securities suit on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bottomline Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: EPAY) from February 12, 1999 to December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against the Company and their
underwriter BancBoston Robertson Stephens.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about
February 12, 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
3,400,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $13
per share.

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

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

    (ii) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Bottomline
         shares to those customers in the Bottomline 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: bottomlinecase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


CAPROCK COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a securities
class action suit against CapRock Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:
CPRK) and three of the Company's senior executives. The case was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division on behalf of purchasers of Company stock from April 28,
2000 to July 6, 2000, inclusive, including those who purchased shares
in the Company's June 16, 2000 secondary offering.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly manipulating the
Company's financial statements.

The Company allegedly issued a series of false and misleading
statements during the class period concerning revenues to be derived by
the Company from its dark fiber segment. This served to artificially
inflate the price of their common stock. The resulting upsurge in stock
price, caused by the Company's false and misleading statements, allowed
the Company to sell 4.5 million shares of its stock for proceeds of $83
million and enabled defendants to infuse the Company with needed
capital to fund its operations.

Less than three weeks after their secondary offering was completed, the
Company revealed that it was suffering an enormous decline in revenues,
and its losses would be 800% greater than defendants had stated in the
prior weeks. Following the announcement, the price of the Company's
common stock fell to as low as $12 from its Class Period high of $36 on
record volume of over 4 million shares on July 6, 2000.

For more information, 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

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


CLARENT CORPORATION: Mark McNair Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair commenced a securities class action
lawsuit against purchasers of Clarent Corporation (Nasdaq: CLRN) stock
between April 19, 2001 and September 4, 2001. The suit, filed in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the
Company and the following defendants:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Jerry Shaw-Yau Chang,

     (4) Richard J. Heaps and

     (5) Michael F. Vargo.

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.  The suit specifically
alleges that the Company improperly recognized revenue, substantially
underreported its losses and issued materially overstated financial
results for its first and second quarters of fiscal 2001.

Following an announcement by the Company stating that it had begun
investigating a "potential overstatement of historical revenues" and
had placed three executives on administrative leave, the Nasdaq Stock
Market suspended trading of Clarent's stock.

For more information, contact Mark McNair by Mail: 1101 30th Street
PN.W. Suite 500, Washington, D.C, 20007 by Phone: 877/511-4717 or
202/872-4717 by E-mail: wmmcnair@justice4investors.com or visit their
Website: www.justice4investors.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in Nebraska
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of ConAgra Foods Inc. (NYSE: CAG)
between August 28, 1998 and May 23, 2001 inclusive.

The suit names as defendants, the Company and:

     (1) Bruce C. Rohde, President since August 1996, Chief Executive
         Officer Since September, 1997, and Chairman since September
         1998;

     (2) James P. O'Donnell, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate
         Secretary;

     (3) Kenneth W. DiFonzo, Senior Vice President; and

     (4) Jay D. Bolding, Vice President and Controller

The complaint charges 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 materially false and
misleading statements to the market from August 28, 1998 to May 23,
2001, about its financial performance for the fiscal years 1998, 1999,
and 2000.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued press releases reporting
the Company's quarterly and year-end financial performance, and filed
reports confirming such performance with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  These statements were materially false and misleading
because United Agri Products, a ConAgra subsidiary, engaged in improper
accounting, including improperly recognizing revenue and insufficiently
reserving for bad debt.

In May 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing that the
Company will restate its financial results for the fiscal years 1998,
1999 and 2000.  The press release revealed that the Company will
restate revenues for the Company's fiscal years 1998-2000, inclusive,
which will be reduced by an estimated total of $349 million.

The press release further revealed that the Company estimated that,
upon restatement, earnings per share will be reduced from $1.35 to
$1.32 for 1998, from $1.46 to $1.41 for 1999, and from $1.67 to $1.60
for 2000.  In addition, according to the press release, the Company is
cooperating with an ongoing investigation by the SEC into the matter.

For more information, contact 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/mhnzel182


CYBER-CARE INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences S.D. FL Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action suit
against Cyber-Care Inc (Nasdaq: CYBR) and two of the Company's senior
executives.  The case is being filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock or other securities from October 12, 1999 to May 12, 2000,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Cyber-Care and its executives violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company allegedly issued a series of false and misleading
statements concerning contracts for its highly touted Internet-based
product, "Electronic HouseCall System" (EHS).  The Company reportedly
did not disclose that EHS had not received FDA approval, in violation
of FDA rules.

Cyber-Care allegedly manipulated its stock price by misrepresenting the
EHS contracts as involving Internet technlogy, rather than disclosing
that the contracts involved non-Internet systems that may not have
required FDA approval. This was done to allegedly benefit from the
market's strong reaction to all Internet related businesses, and
resulted in artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
common stock.

It is further alleged that Cyber-Care misled the market by not
disclosing that a purportedly independent analyst who issued two
research reports with "strong buy" recommendations for Cyber-Care
actually owned shares of the Company's stock and was employed by Cyber-
Care's own marketing firm.

As a result of Cyber-Care's materially false and misleading statements,
the market price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated. When the market finally learned of the Company's
misrepresentations, the price of Cyber-Care's common stock fell
dramatically.

For more information, 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

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


DIGITAS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of purchasers of Digitas, Inc. (NASDAQ: DTAS) common stock
between March 13, 2000 and June 26, 2001, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) David W. Kenny,

     (3) Kathleen L. Biro,

     (4) Michael Goss,

     (5) Michael Ward,

     (6) Michael E. Bronner,

     (7) John L. Bunce, Jr.,

     (8) Orit Gadiesh,

     (9) Philip U. Hammarskjold,

    (10) Patrick J. Healy and

    (11) Arthur Kern

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock pursuant to the
March 13, 2000 IPO without disclosing that some of the underwriters in
the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the excessive commissions,
joint lead underwriters:

     (i) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

    (ii) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,

   (iii) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

    (iv) Banc of America Securities LLC and

     (v) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.

allocated Digitas shares to customers at the IPO price of $24.00 per
share.

To receive the allocations at $24.00, the underwriters' brokerage
customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket
at progressively higher prices. The alleged requirement that customers
make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price
of Company stock rocketed upward was intended to drive the Company's
share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying
stock at the $24.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $40 on March 14,
2000, its first day of trading, to close that day at $29.50.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the underwriters required their customers
to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions.
These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the
fact, based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her
IPO stock allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because the prospectus distributed to investors and the
registration statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the Digitas offering contained material misstatements.
The documents failed to disclose information regarding the commissions
that the underwriters would derive from the IPO transaction and failed
to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed
above.

For more information, contact 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
     

DT INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses MO Securities Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissed,
without prejudice, the consolidated securities class action against DT
Industries and its subsidiaries, Kalish Inc. and Sencorp Systems Inc.
The consolidated suit arose from five suits filed last year alleging
violations of Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during various periods, all of which fall between September 29,
1997 and August 23, 2000.  The suit specifically alleges, among other
things, that accounting irregularities caused the Company's previously
issued financial statements to be materially false and misleading.

The Company indicated that the opinion leaves open the opportunity for
the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, however it is too soon to
predict whether the plaintiffs will attempt to do so.

Company president Stephen Perkins expressed satisfaction in a press
statement, saying, "DTI is pleased with the decision of the court and
the fact that the plaintiffs' allegations were deemed to be
insufficient."


HUMAN SHIELDS: Americans Sue Iraqi Government For Human Rights Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 150 American citizens who were taken hostage by the Iraqi
government of Saddam Hussein in 1990 commenced a trial against Iraq in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs were trapped in Iraq and neighboring countries during
the 1990 Gulf War, after Hussein issued an order prohibiting all U.S.
citizens and other foreign nationals from leaving. American citizens
were seized by Iraqi force and taken to military installations and
other strategic sites, where they were used as "human shields" to deter
Allied air attack.

The plaintiffs' claim is brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act (FSIA), which authorizes suits against countries that have been
designated as "terrorist states" by the State Department when those
states perpetrate acts of terrorism against American citizens.

The FSIA provides for jurisdiction in cases, such as this one, which
allege that a foreign government has violated the International
Convention Against the Taking of Hostages by seizing American citizens
in order to extract concessions from the United States. Iraq and
Hussein have failed to respond, despite being served with the Complaint
in this case. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson will seek to arrive at a
fair result without input from the defendants.

It is uncertain whether plaintiffs will be able to recover damages in
this lawsuit. The law firm of Spenger and Lang says that damages could
be recovered from frozen Iraqi assets in the country.

In the website www.iraqcase.com, the firm opines that "the President
could exercise his authority under the law to allow the payment of that
judgment from Iraqi frozen assets.   Alternatively, if the President is
unwilling to exercise that authority, Congress could pass legislation
instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay that judgment out of
those assets."

The firm cited a precedent, saying "just as it (the Congress) directed
the Secretary to pay judgments rendered on behalf of victims of Cuban
and Libyan-sponsored terrorism, by liquidating the frozen assets of
those countries when it enacted the Justice for Victims of Terrorism
Act."

For more information, contact Daniel Wolf of Spenger and Lang by E-
mail: dwolf@sprengerlang.com by Phone: (202) 772-1154 by Fax: (202)
332-6652 or by Mail: Sprenger & Lang, 1614 Twentieth Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20009.


INTEL CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach, LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of an institutional investor and other
purchasers of Intel Corp. (NASDAQ:INTC) publicly traded securities
during the period between July 19, 2000 and Sept. 29, 2000. The suit,
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, charges the Company with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the Company's extraordinarily
bullish statements and assurances during July and August 2000, Intel's
stock hit its all-time high of $75-13/16.

The suit alleges that the Company issued positive, but false,
statements about:

     (1) the strong demand for the Company's products;

     (2) their improved manufacturing processes and efficiencies;

     (3) the successful development and introduction of its Pentium III
         microprocessor;

     (4) the successful development of the Pentium IV, Itanium and
         Timna chips; and

     (5) the outlook for the Company's results for the 3rd quarter of
         the year 2000

In September 2000, the Company admitted it was canceling its Timna chip
due to technical development problems and a lack of market demand and
was delaying shipment of its Pentium IV and Itanium chips due to design
and development problems.

The Company's stock dropped, falling to as low as $35-3/8. In just over
five weeks, their stock dropped from its all-time high of $75-13/16 to
its lowest price in years, $35-3/8, a market cap loss of $271 billion,
wiping out 50% of their stock value.

For more information, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800/449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


INTERNET SECURITY: Holzer Holzer Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:ISSX) securities
during the period between April 1, 2001 and July 2, 2001, inclusive.
The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading representations regarding the Company's revenues and
earnings for the first half of fiscal year 2001 and thereby
artificially inflated the price of Company stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in April 2001, the Company
reported its 23rd consecutive quarter of growth and claimed revenues in
excess of $61 million and net income of $6.5 million or $0.15 per
share. The Company allegedly 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 also 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 knew they could not achieve these numbers.

The Company 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."  No such notice was given despite the fact
that the defendants knew that their business was slowing down, the
complaint alleges.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants had such knowledge
from financial reports, which they received on a frequent basis, as
well as from their knowledge that they had too many employees in view
of the economic slowdown.

In July 2001, the Company issued a press release in which it stated
that management expected revenues in the range of $50-52 million, as
opposed to the $64-67 million and a loss per diluted share between
$0.00 to $0.02, rather than earnings of $0.15 to $0.16, as predicted.
The Company admitted that it had over-hired and over-indulged on fringe
benefits, travel and entertainment and dismissed 12% of its work force.
This confirmed that the Company had too many employees and greater
expenses than it could afford, given its level of sales.

For more information, contact Corey D. Holzer by Phone: (888) 508-6832
(toll-free).


INTERNET SECURITY: Cauley Geller Initiates N.D. GA Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Internet Security Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ISSX) publicly traded securities during the period 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 and
charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that 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 for the first quarter of 2001, the Company
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 also 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.

Defendants 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.

On July 2001, after the quarter had ended, the Company stated in a
press release 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 released
its actual numbers, and admitted that it had over hired and over
indulged on fringe benefits, travel and entertainment. The Company also
laid off 12% of its work force, confirming what its executives had
known or recklessly disregarded, that it had too many employees and
greater expenses than it could afford, given its level of sales.

Class members who had bought shares when the Company told them they
could rely on its guidance, found out on the morning of July 3, 2001
that their stock had tumbled more than 40 percent.

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 by E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Keynote Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:
KEYN) from September 24, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.   
The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and its lead underwriter,
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

On September 24, 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering
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 SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, 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 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 Marc A. Topaz, 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 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Keynote Systems, Inc.
(NasdaqNM:KEYN) between September 24, 1999 and August 15, 2001,
inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder.

The complaint names as defendants, the Company, Chief Executive Officer
Umang Gupta and Chief Financial Officer John Flavio.

The suit alleges that the defendants issued and sold the Company's
common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing
to investors that at least one of the lead underwriters of the IPO and
secondary offering had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriter FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated Keynote
Systems shares to customers at the IPO price of $14.00 per share.

To receive the allocations at $14.00, the defendant underwriters'
brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The alleged requirement
that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices
as the price of Company stock rocketed upward was intended to drive
Keynote's share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits
by buying stock at the $14.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a
profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $28.00.

The complaint further alleges that the Company was able to price its
secondary offering at the artificially high price of $105.00 per share
due to the continuing effects of the foregoing violations.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their
customers to ``kick back'' some of their profits in the form of secret
commissions.  These secret commission payments were sometimes
calculated after the fact based on how much profit each investor had
made from his or her IPO stock allocation.

The complaint also alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1933 because the prospectuses and the registration statements filed
with the SEC contained material misstatements. The Company allegedly
misstated information regarding the commissions that the underwriters
derived from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions
and ``laddering'' scheme discussed above.

For more information, contact 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/
      

MARY MEEKER: Court Dismisses Eight Securities Suits With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court dismissed with prejudice eight securities class
action lawsuits against Morgan Stanley's internet analyst Mary Meeker
yesterday. Mary Meeker, known as the "Queen of the Internet", was known
for her bullish views on the internet sector during the 1990s bull
market. When Internet stocks dived this year, investors sued Meeker,
alleging she provided biased research on Amazon.com Inc.
(NasdaqNM:AMZN) and eBay Inc. (NasdaqNM:EBAY), two high-flying Internet
companies.

When the Nasdaq Composite Index (IXIC) hit a record high of 5,132.52 on
March 10, 2000, Internet stocks were soaring. According to a Reuters
report, online retailer Amazon was trading for more than $60 a share,
while a share of Internet auctioneer eBay was worth more than $72.
Since last March, Amazon shares have fallen more than 80 percent, while
eBay shares have fallen more than 20 percent.

The suits also claimed Meeker crossed over the "Chinese Wall,"
referring to the separation that is supposed to exist within a firm
between analysts and investment bankers.

U.S. District Court Judge Milton Pollack had earlier dismissed other
cases in August and was outspoken in his dismissal, calling the suits
"gross and unrestrained."  In an August 22 interview with Reuters,
Pollack said, the complainants "don't owe (Meeker) any of their
profits, (yet) now they want her to take their losses."

Morgan Stanley hailed the decision saying that, "Our research is
thorough and objective, and Mary Meeker's integrity is beyond
reproach." Meeker and Morgan Stanley have agreed not to seek sanctions
against the plaintiffs and their attorneys.


NIKU CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Niku Corp. (NASDAQ: NIKU) securities between
February 25, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The suit names as defendants, the Company and:

     (1) Farzad Dibachi,

     (2) Mark Nelson,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Dain Rauscher Incorporated,

     (5) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC, and

     (6) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray

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

The prospectus was issued in connection with Niku's initial public
offering of 8,000,000 shares of common stock at $24.00 per share that
was completed on or about February 25, 2000. 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 more information, contact 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/

      
ONYX SOFTWARE:  Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach, LLP expanded the class period
in the class action against Onyx Software Corporation (NASDAQ: ONXS) to
include purchasers of the Company's secondary stock offering in
February 2001, during the period between January 10, 2001 and August
10, 2001. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington. The complaint charges the Company
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In January 2001, the Company announced the acquisition of Revenue Lab
and, after the close of the market, hosted a conference call to discuss
the acquisition and the Company's business and prospects. Later, the
Company reported favorable, but false, financial results.

The complaint alleges that the Company made misleading statements about
its business and issued false and misleading financial results, causing
its stock to be artificially inflated.  As a result of this inflation,
the Company was able to complete a secondary offering of 2.5 million
shares at $13.50 per share, raising net proceeds of $31.5 million on
February 7, 2001.

Just weeks after this offering was completed, the Company revealed that
its 1stQ01 results would be sharply lower with revenues of only $26-$27
million and a large loss. The stock dropped below $3 per share on this
news. Then, on August 10, 2001, after the market closed, defendants
revealed that the Company's 4thQ00 results had been materially
misstated and would have to be restated. After this announcement, the
Company's stock price dropped to as low as $3.70 on August 13, 2001
compared to the Class Period high of $17.25.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone:
800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.milberg.com


ONYX SOFTWARE: Mark McNair Initiates W.D. Washington Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair commenced a securities class action
lawsuit against Onyx Software Corporation (Nasdaq: ONXS) in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The
complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock
between January 30, 2001 and July 24, 2001, including those who
participated in the company's February 2001 stock offering.

The complaint alleges that the Company filed false and misleading
financial results for the fourth quarter and year-end 2000 and used
those false numbers in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in relation to its February 2001 stock offering. The
complaint further alleges that due to the resultant inflated price of
the Company's stock, the Company was able to issue 2,500,000 shares of
stock at an inflated price of $13.50 per share.

However, Onyx investors would be stunned by two Company announcements.
First, on July 24, 2001, Onyx announced that it had discovered an
unauthorized side-letter agreement that related to a licensing
transaction completed in its fourth quarter of 2000. Second, on August
10, 2001, the Company acknowledged that it needed to restate its
previously reported financial results for the fourth quarter and year
ended December 31, 2000.  As a result of these developments, Onyx stock
fell as low as $3.42 a share, down from a Class Period high of $16.50 a
share.

For further details, contact Mark McNair by Mail: 1819 Pennsylvania
Ave. N.W. Suite 550, Washington, D.C, 20006 by Phone: (877) 511-4717 by
E-mail: wmmcnair@justice4investors.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.justice4investors.com.


OUACHITA PARISH: Louisiana Residents Sue Over Encephalitis Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, commenced a lawsuit in state
district court against the Ouachita Parish Police Jury, its members and
Mosquito Control Inc. due to their inability to prevent an encephalitis
outbreak.

According to a recent Associated press report, the residents filed the
suit, seeking monetary damages and asking the court to classify the
case as a class-action lawsuit.

The suit alleges that the Police Jury was not able to prevent the
outbreak of encephalitis, a condition caused by a brain-swelling virus
and did not take immediate steps to stem the outbreak once it began.
Attorney for the plaintiffs, Joe Guerriero asserts "[The Police Jury]
were under a duty to monitor the effectiveness of what Mosquito Control
Inc. (MCI) was doing.  And they didn't do it.  It's just that simple,"

"The evidence we have against MCI is strong, and whether [the lawsuit]
is a class action or not, I believe we're going to be able to establish
negligence on their part," Guerriero said.  The suit also alleges that
MCI used inadequate or improper chemicals and equipment to abate the
mosquitoes that spread the St. Louis encephalitis virus.

The number of cases of St. Louis encephalitis in northeastern Louisiana
remained steady at 67 since October 8.  There have been three deaths
since the outbreak was reported on August 8.

The Police Jury held a private session during its recent regularly
scheduled meeting to discuss the lawsuit.  However, Police Jury
President Tom Holtzclaw would not comment on the specifics of the
lawsuit.  "We're interested in the health and welfare of the residents
of this parish," he said.  "And the lawsuit is immaterial compared to
the health and welfare of those residents."

Wayne Machado, MCI entomologist and general manager, said he wasn't
aware of the lawsuit.


VIRAGE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of purchasers of Virage, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRGE) securities
between June 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit names
as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock in the June 2000
IPO without disclosing that some of the underwriters in the offering
had received excessive commissions from certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Company shares to customers at the
IPO price. To receive the allocations at the IPO price, the
underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of the Company's stock
rocketed upward was intended to drive the share price up to
artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation enabled both
the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying
stock at the IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices.

For more information, contact 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/

  
                             *********

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  * * *