CAR_Public/011012.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 12, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 200


                           Headlines


ACCESS MEDPLUS: Doctors Sue Managed Care Firm Over Underpayments
ADVANCED DEPOSITION: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in MA
ALLIANCE FUND: Sued For Securities Violation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
ART TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in MA
ART TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in Massachusetts

CLARENT CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit
CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files NY Securities Suit
DIGIMARC INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
eTOYS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
FORD MOTOR: Court Moves Certification Hearing To November

FREEMARKETS INC: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. PA
GADZOOX NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. NY Securities Suit
HEALTHEON WEBMD: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
H&R BLOCK: Arizona Court Approves $21M Settlement in Securities Suit
INTEL CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA

INTERVOICE-BRITE:  Denies Allegations In Securities Suits in N.D. TX
KANA SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit  
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NETWORK PLUS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Berman DeValerio Initiate E.D. NY Securities Suit

RAMBUS INC.: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
ROBOTIC VISION: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in MA
THEGLOBE.COM: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
VERTICALNET INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY


                           *********


ACCESS MEDPLUS: Doctors Sue Managed Care Firm Over Underpayments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Access MedPlus, the largest of the 10 managed care organizations in
Tennessee's TennCare program, was recently sued by the Tennessee
Medical Association on behalf of doctors across the state, according to
a recent Associated Press report.

TMA lawyer David Steed said the class-action lawsuit claims Access has
been trying to satisfy debts to doctors by "unilaterally issuing
credits based upon incorrect allegations of past overpayments."

The lawsuit, said Steed, "seeks to stop this practice, and to have
Access pay their overdue debts with real money."

Steed says that he expects a hearing on TMA's request for a temporary
restraining order will be held within the next few days.

There is an added dimension to this class action.  TennCare, a state-
federal health insurance program for the poor, the disabled and
otherwise uninsured citizens, with a budget of $5.6 billion, two-thirds
of which is provided by the federal government, has the responsibility
of overseeing its member health plans.

Access had been put under close state supervision last year because its
system for processing claims and paying medical providers was found to
be inaccurate.

Apparently, Access recently missed a state-imposed deadline for
documenting its financial stability with TennCare.  The usual penalty
for failing to present such information is to risk being kicked out of
the TennCare program.

At the time the letter requesting the documentation was received by
Access in mid-September, officials at Access said the company [Access]
had been underpaid $20 million during the year according to state
figures.  

The request for documentation was "yet another attempt to put us out of
business," said Access spokesman Phil West at the time.

Director Mark Reynolds described TennCare's position, "The biggest
concern is the company's financial adequacy.  They have missed critical
deadlines on critical financial material, and we see no effort being
made to provide that information."

Access, the only TennCare member with a statewide network, serves
279,000 of the program's 1.4 million enrollees.


ADVANCED DEPOSITION: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against certain officers and directors of Advanced Deposition
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADTCQ).

The Company allegedly issued materially false and misleading financial
statements and failed to disclose certain related party transactions.

The action came after the Company's auditors resigned and the company
revealed that certain officers and directors had fraudulently caused
the company to improperly engage in related party transactions.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all investors who bought
Advanced Deposition stock between May 28, 1998 and April 4, 2001.

The class action charges the defendants with issuing false and
misleading financial statements and news releases about the company's
earnings and related party transactions. According to the complaint,
the company failed to disclose transactions that should have been made
public under both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.

In a number of filings with the SEC, the company revealed that:

    (1) its auditors, Ernst & Young, resigned because it was "no longer
        willing to accept managements representations" and

    (2) that the defendants had "falsified documents and misrepresented
        past events" concerning the company.

The Company filed for bankruptcy court protection on April 2001 while
the Nasdaq Stock Market has suspended trading of Company shares.

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


ALLIANCE FUND: Sued For Securities Violation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Fund Distributors faces two securities class action suits
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois. The two suits similarly allege violations of the Securities
Act of 1940 and breaches of common law fiduciary duty.

In April 2001, a class action suit entitled Miller et al. v. Mitchell
Hutchins Asset Management,Inc. et al. was filed against the Company and
other defendants.

The allegations in that complaint concern six mutual funds with which
the Adviser has investment advisory agreements, including:

     (1) the Alliance Premier Growth Fund,

     (2) the Alliance Health Care Fund,

     (3) the Alliance Growth Fund,

     (4) the Alliance Quasar Fund,

     (5) the Alliance Fund and

     (6) the Alliance Disciplined Value Fund

The suit principally alleges that:

     (i) certain advisory agreements concerning these funds were
         negotiated, approved and executed in violation of the 1940
         Act, in particular because certain directors of these funds
         should be deemed interested under the 1940 Act;

    (ii) the distribution plans for these funds were negotiated,
         approved and executed in violation of the 1940 Act; and

   (iii) the advisory fees and distribution fees paid to the defendants
         are excessive and, therefore, constitute a breach of fiduciary
         duty.

In June 2001, an amended class action complaint entitled Nelson et al.
v. AIM Advisors et al. was filed against the Company and numerous other
defendants in the mutual fund industry. The suit makes allegations
substantially similar to the first.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suit are without
merit.  


ART TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action suit on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Art Technology Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ARTG) from January 25, 2001 through April 2, 2001,
inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts and names as defendant 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 the Company publicly
represented that it was not subject to the negative trends in the
software industry which were effecting the Company's competitors.
The Company also asserted 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:

     (1) many clients were technology companies that were negatively
         impacted by the widespread decrease in technology spending
         which was underway before the class period began, and

     (2) many of these customers could not afford to pay the Company
         for its products.

In April 2001, the Company announced it will incur a loss of between
$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 regarding the truth about their business state,
Company insiders sold a total of over $8.7 million of their personally
held company stock.

For more information, contact Marc A. 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


ART TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Art Technology Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARTG)
common stock during the period between January 25, 2001 and April 2,
2001, inclusive. The complaint, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, charges the Company and
certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal
securities laws.

The defendants allegedly issued false and misleading statements
concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company publicly represented, in a press
release and public interviews, that it was not subject to the negative
trends in the software industry.

The Company also asserted 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:

     (1) many clients were technology companies that were negatively
         impacted by the widespread decrease in technology spending
         which was underway before the class period began; and

     (2) 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 between $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 details, 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


CLARENT CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Clarent Corporation (NASDAQ:
CLRN) securities between April 19, 2001 and September 4, 2001.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, names as defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Jerry Shaw-Yau Chang, Chairman of the Board,

     (3) Simon Wong, Chief Financial Officer,

     (4) Michael F. Vargo, Chief Executive Officer and a Director, and

     (5) Mark E. McIlvane, Senior Vice President

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

The defendants allegedly issued materially false and misleading
statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that in April 2001, the Company reported its results for the first
quarter of 2001 - net revenue had increased 15% over the fourth quarter
of 2000 and had increased 149% from the first quarter of 2000.

In July 2001, the Company announced its results for the second quarter
of 2001. Shortly thereafter, the Company filed its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the same
quarter.  The Company's August 10-Q stated that net revenues had
increased 123% to $63.2 million in the three months ended June 30, 2001
from $28.3 million in the three months ended June 30, 2000.

Net revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2001 increased by 135% to
$134.3 million from $52.9 million for the same period in 2000. The
increase in product and software sales was "primarily attributable to
sales of new products." These positive revenue announcements, which the
Company now admits were false and misleading, artificially inflated the
price of stock.

This also allowed Company insiders to benefit from the fraudulent
financial statements and sell over 130,000 shares of common stock at
prices ranging from $8.00 to $10.48 per share for total proceeds of
$1.3 million. Just three weeks after the Company filed its August 10-Q,
they admitted that its financial results were materially overstated.

In September 2001, the Company publicly announced that "it has
discovered information suggesting that the Company's previously
reported revenues for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2001 may
have been materially overstated."

On this news, NASDAQ halted trading in the Company. The Company's
common stock was last quoted on September 4, 2001 at $5.37 per share.
According to NASDAQ, trading will remain halted until the Company has
fully satisfied its request for additional information.

For more information, contact George Peters, Derek Behnke, Michael
Miske, Gregory Nespole or Fred Taylor Isquith by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com.
All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Clarent.


CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action suit on behalf of all persons who acquired CyberSource
Corporation (NASDAQ: CYBS) securities between June 23, 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) William S. McKiernan,

     (2) Charles E. Noreen, Jr.,

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

     (4) Goldman Sachs & Co. and

     (5) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, 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 the Company's initial
public offering of four million shares of common stock at $11.00 per
share that was commenced on June 23, 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 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 aftermarket 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: CYBS@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


DIGIMARC INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Digimarc Corporation (Nasdaq:
DMRC) between December 1, 1999 and March 12, 2001.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, names as defendants, the Company and:

     (1) Bruce Davis, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Geoffrey Rhoads, founder and Chief Technology officer,

     (3) E. K. Ranjit, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary,

     (4) Philip J. Monego, Sr., Chairman,

     (5) Brian J. Grossi, director,

     (6) John Taysom, director,

     (7) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., lead underwriter

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 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 thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock
pursuant to the December 2, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors
that one of the lead underwriters in the offering had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.
In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, the
lead underwriter allocated Company shares to customers at the IPO price
of $20.00 per share.

To receive the alleged allocations at $20.00, the underwriter's
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 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 the
defendants to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the $20.00 IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket
prices, which rose as high as $88.00 during its first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the underwriter required its 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.

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


eTOYS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
eToys, Inc. (formerly listed as NasdaqNM:ETYS).

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of eToys,
Inc. between May 19, 1999 and May 26, 2000, inclusive.

The suit 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:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Edward C. Lenk, President and Chief Executive Officer at the
         time of its IPO, and

     (3) Steven J. Schoch, its CFO at the time of its IPO

The defendants allegedly violated federal securities laws by issuing
and selling eToys common stock pursuant to the initial public offering
without disclosing to investors that three of the lead underwriters of
the IPO had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges that
the following lead underwriters:

     (i) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

    (ii) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

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

allocated eToys shares to customers at the IPO price of $20.00 per
share.

To receive the allocations at $20.00, 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
eToys stock rocketed upward was intended to drive eToys's share price
up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the defendants and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying
eToys stock at the $20.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a
profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $85.00
during its first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendants 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 eToys offering contained material misstatements.

These statements relate to the commissions that the underwriters would
derive 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
      

FORD MOTOR: Court Moves Certification Hearing To November
---------------------------------------------------------
Hearing for class certification in the legal battle against automotive
giant Ford Motor Co. and tire manufacturer Firestone, Inc. has been
rescheduled for November 16.

Hundreds of lawsuits were filed across the country over deaths and
injuries in rollovers of Ford's Explorer sport utility vehicle and
tires manufactured by Firestone, a unit of Japan's Bridgestone Corp.

Federal regulators have linked 271 deaths and more than 800 injuries to
Firestone tires, many in accidents involving Explorers that rolled over
after deadly blowouts on U.S. highways.

Federal judge Sarah Evans Barker delayed the hearing, which was
originally scheduled to begin yesterday in Indianapolis, because she
wanted more time to consider new information filed by the attorneys
seeking class-action status.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have argued that the plaintiffs have enough
in common to justify a "class" designation.

They argued that the two companies acted in a common scheme of
"designing, manufacturing, warranting, advertising and selling
unreasonably dangerous Ford Explorers and tires to millions of
consumers throughout the world."

They also alleged that both companies concealed the defects in the
product.

The two companies have opposed class action status for the suit saying
that the facts differ too much between various individuals. According
to the companies, some may have seen different advertisements for the
same products and some may have bought the Explorer through someone
other than a Ford dealer.

"Plaintiffs have not shown -- and they cannot -- how the claims of the
diverse members of this class could be proven with representative
proofs," according to written comments submitted to the court.

"And when the individual's Explorer design and performance issues are
added to the equation, it is plain that a class trial of so many
distinct products would be unmanageable."

Stanford law professor Deborah Hensler said in a Reuters report that
the federal judiciary in general has tended to be more hostile toward
class-action certification recently than previously.

She said such lawsuits are often criticized as producing large fees for
the plaintiffs attorneys and small settlements for consumers while
giving the companies an easy out.

Whatever the judge's decision about class-action certification, it's
possible an appeal will be filed, she added.

"Most people following class-actions today would say the judicial winds
are blowing against the certification of this kind of case," she said.

If class action status is awarded in the case, a main trial would
proceed in Indianapolis, and the results would be applied to all
plaintiffs.

The pending suit has hurt the bottomlines of Ford Motors and Firestone
and severed the 100-year-old relationship between the two companies who
blamed each other for the accidents.


FREEMARKETS INC: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo commenced a securities
class action against Freemarkets, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The suit was filed on
behalf of all investors who bought FreeMarkets, Inc. common stock
between July 24, 2000 and April 23, 2001.

The suit charged the Company with improperly accounting for its
financial results for the second, third and fourth quarters and the
year of fiscal 2000.  In reporting its financial results, the Company
failed to properly account for a warrant that it had provided to one of
its largest customers, Visteon Corporation.

Consequently, the Company was able to report artificially-inflated
revenues during the class period.

On April 23, 2001, FreeMarkets revealed that the Securities and
Exchange Commission had informed the Company that its payments from
Visteon should not be classified as revenue, but as money paid for the
warrant. As a result, absent an appeal, the Company announced its
intention to amend its financial statements to eliminate all the
revenue it had received from Visteon during the class period.

The Company's stock price fell from a close of $10.29 per share on
April 23, 2001 to $9.30 on April 24, 2001.

The suit also names the Company's chief executive officer and chief
financial officer as defendants. These officers are charged with
collectively selling thousands of shares of the Company's common stock
during the class period for proceeds totaling over $17 million.

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


GADZOOX NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
suit on behalf all persons who acquired Gadzoox Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ZOOX) securities between July 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (3) Bill Sickler,

     (4) Christine E. Munson and

     (5) Alistar Black

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

On or about July 19, 1999, the Company commenced an initial public
offering of 3,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $21.00 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 the underwriters 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 the underwriters 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
         predetermined 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 or by E-mail: ZOOX@bernlieb.com
or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


HEALTHEON WEBMD: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired the securities of WebMD
Corporation, formerly known as Healtheon Corporation, (NASDAQ: HLTH)
between February 10, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (1) W. Michael Long,

     (2) John L. Westerman, III,

     (3) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and

     (4) Goldman Sachs & Co.

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

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 the Company's initial
public offering of 5 million shares of common stock at $8.00 per share
that was completed on February 10, 1999. The suit 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 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 of the Company in the aftermarket
         at pre-determined prices.
          
For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: HLTH@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


H&R BLOCK: Arizona Court Approves $21M Settlement in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Superior Court approved a $21 million agreement by H&R
Block Financial Advisors, Inc. to settle a class action suit filed on
behalf of investors. The case was filed in 1996 at the Superior Court
of Arizona, Maricopa County, in October 1996, against Olde Discount
Corporation, which H&R Block bought in 1999.

Investors claimed that Olde advertised their "Smart" training programs
throughout the country, in marketing materials that falsely promised
customers "full service" with "no commissions or markups of any kind."
Plaintiff's attorney David Lefkowitz asserted, "This fraudulent
advertising was part of a scheme to steer customers into only buying
from Olde's tiny pool of house stocks."

Lefkowitz further claimed that the Company and its brokers made
exceptional markups and commissions, contrary to what they told the
plaintiffs. In fact, the Company engaged in a number of practices
inconsistent with other broker-dealers calling itself "full service."

The Company allegedly permitted its brokers to recommend less than 3
percent of the 8,000-plus stocks listed on the New York and American
Stock Exchanges and Nasdaq. The brokers bypassed actively-traded,
large-cap stocks on the New York Stock Exchange in favor of Nasdaq
stocks where Company profits from market-making were larger.

The Company also imposed Special Venture sales quotas and production
requirements to force its brokers to sell its house stocks.

Lefkowitz explained that Company brokers depended on those commissions
since they were only paid $14,400 per year, and the Company put a
system in place that deprived brokers of all commission privileges
unless they sold Special Ventures.

The Company did not sell Special Ventures to its customers at its
acquisition cost (often the "bid" price of the stock), but instead
marked them up to a higher price (usually the "ask" price), contrary to
its class-wide advertising of "no-markup" trading. The Company paid its
brokers undisclosed commissions from the hidden markups. Higher
commissions were paid on stocks the firm wanted to move.

The Company settled the case after a 3-week trial for $21 million,
representing 115 percent of the investors' net out-of-pocket losses.

For further information, please contact Karen Restivo by Phone: 1-310-
209-5678, ext. 224 or David I. Lefkowitz by Phone: 1-310-393-4929.


INTEL CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway lodged a securities class action suit on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Intel Corp. (NASDAQ:INTC) from
July 19, 2000 through September 29, 2000, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Intel Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial condition.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that as a result of Intel's
extraordinarily bullish statements and assurances in July and August
2000, the Company's stock hit its all-time high of $75-13/16.

The suit alleges that these statements were false:

     (1) the positive statements about the strong demand for Intel's
         products,

     (2) Intel's improved manufacturing processes and efficiencies,

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

     (4) the successful development of the Pentium IV,

     (5) Itanium and Timna chips and the outlook for Intel's 3rdQ 00
         results, issued from July 18 to July 19, 2000 through the
         Intel Developer Forum

In September 2000, the Company admitted it was canceling its Timna chip
due to technical development problems and a lack of market demand. The
Company also told customers it 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. Thus, in
just over five weeks, Intel's stock dropped from its all-time high of
$75-13/16 on 8/28, to its lowest price in years, $35-3/8, a market cap
loss of $271 billion, wiping out 50% of Intel's stock value.

For more details, contact Marc A. 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


INTERVOICE-BRITE:  Denies Allegations In Securities Suits in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Intervoice-Brite, Inc. denied allegations in several securities suits
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock from October 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000 and names as
defendants the Company and certain officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5.


The suit claim that the defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning:

     (1) the financial condition of the Company,

     (2) the results of the Company's merger with Brite Voice Systems,
         Inc., and

     (3) the alleged future business projections of the Company.

As a result, the Company's stock was inflated to as high as $38.75 per
share. The defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling 525,916
shares of their stock for $13.4 million in proceeds. Then, in June
2000, the Company shocked the market, revealing that it would report a
loss of $0.03 to $0.05 and revenues of only $67-68 million rather than
the EPS of $0.22 and revenues of $89 million defendants had led the
market to expect.

The defendants blamed the shortfall on sales people who had begun
leaving the Company in the months prior to this disclosure, some of
which were unhappy with the integrated Company.

The Company asserted that its officers have complied with their
obligations under the securities laws.



KANA SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Kana Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ: KANA) securities between September 21, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

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

     (1) Michael J. McCloskey,

     (2) Joseph D. McCarthy,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Hambrecht & Quist, LLC,

     (6) Wit Capital Corporation

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 Kana's initial public
offering of 3.3 million shares of common stock at $15.00 per share that
was commenced on September 21, 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 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 Kana shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

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


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of 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 underwriter
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

In September 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 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) 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 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 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


NETWORK PLUS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Network Plus Corp.
(NASDAQ: NPLS) securities between June 30, 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) Robert T. Hale, Jr.,

     (2) James J. Crowley,

     (3) George Alex,

     (4) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (5) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

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

     (7) Lehman Brothers, Inc., and

     (8) Salomon Smith Barney, 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 the Company's initial
public offering of 8,000,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share
that was completed on June 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 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 aftermarket 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: NPLS@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com
  

NORTEL NETWORKS: Berman DeValerio Initiate E.D. NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo commenced a securities  
class action suit against Nortel Networks Corporation in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The
complaint seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who bought Nortel common stock between
November 1, 2000 and February 15, 2001.

The complaint charges that Nortel and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Company
allegedly issued materially false and misleading financial information
concerning the demand for the Company's product.

Specifically, the complaint asserts that during the class period, the
Company touted strong revenue and earnings guidance for first quarter
and fiscal year 2001. In January 2001, the Company announced that it
would "continue to outpace the market and gain profitable market share"
despite the "tightening of capital within the telecom sector."

All along, however, Nortel executives knew that the Company was
experiencing a substantial shortfall in sales and earnings due to
decreased orders from its customers.

In February, after the close of trading and just 28 days after issuing
a bullish first quarter forecast, defendants issued a stunning press
release dramatically lowering Nortel's guidance for first quarter and
fiscal year 2001 because of decreased demand for its product. Company
stock plummeted as much as 36% to $19.50 on enormous trading volume in
excess of 20 million shares, finally closing at $20.02 - erasing nearly
$33 billion in market capitalization.

Moreover, before the devastating announcement on February 15, 2001,
Nortel's senior managements sold substantial amounts of Nortel stock,
reaping proceeds of over $7 million from insider sales.

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


RAMBUS INC.: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo commenced a securities
class action against Rambus, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock between January 18, 2000 and May 9, 2001. The suit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and charges the Company with deceiving investors about
important patterns and violations of federal securities laws.

The suit accuses the Los Altos-based company and three top executives
of making false and misleading statements about the company's ownership
of valuable patents for SDRAM computer memory technology.  The company
derives the majority of its revenues by charging royalty and license
fees to chipmakers on patents it holds. The truth about the Company
emerged after the company sued Infineon AG for patent infringement.

On March 15, 2001, the U.S. District Court judge trying the case ruled
that the Company had too broadly construed the parameters of its
patents on SDRAM technology.  In a subsequent trial, a jury found that
the Company had secured its SDRAM patents through fraud.

Throughout the class period, during which Company stock reached a high
of over $117 per share, the Company falsely held itself out as the
rightful owner of valuable patents on SDRAM technology that it would
vigorously protect through litigation.

It repeatedly touted its growing stream of revenues from SDRAM patent
royalties, without disclosing that such revenues were unlikely to recur
once its fraud in obtaining the patents had been exposed.  It also
failed to disclose that it would be unlikely to adequately enforce
those patents, given Infineon's courtroom defenses.

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


ROBOTIC VISION: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo commenced a securities
class action suit in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of all investors who bought Robotic Vision
Systems, Inc. common stock from January 27, 2000 through May 15, 2001.

The complaint accuses the Company of making false and misleading
statements in its news releases and public filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission about its revenues and net income for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2000.

In news releases issued during the class period, the Company touted its
sequential growth in revenues for the first three quarters of fiscal
year 2000.

The Company also announced a turnaround in which it posted net income
in each quarter compared with quarterly losses for the corresponding
periods in fiscal year 1999.  In the third quarter of fiscal 2000, the
Company attributed its quarterly growth in part to its Acuity CiMatrix
division.  In May 2001, however, the Company announced that it would
restate its financial results for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2000 and for the three month period ended December 31, 2000 to correct
"accounting errors" tied to revenue recognition at Acuity CiMatrix.

At the time of the announcement, the Company said that the restatement
would reduce revenue for the year to an estimated $223.5 million, or
1.9% less than had been reported previously, and shrink net income to
$10.9 million, or 10.6% less than had been reported previously.

In response to the announcement, the Company's stock price dropped
approximately 15% in one day on heavy trading volume.

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


THEGLOBE.COM: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of TheGlobe.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TGLO) between November 12, 1998 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, naming as defendants:

     (1) TheGlobe.com,

     (2) Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.,

     (3) Michael Egan,

     (4) Todd Krizelman,

     (5) Stephen Paternot and

     (6) Frank Joyce

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.

In November 1998, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
3,100,000 of its shares of its common stock, at an offering price of $9
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) Bear Stearns had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which Bear Stearns allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of TheGlobe.com shares
         issued in connection with the TheGlobe.com IPO; and

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

For further details, 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/mhenzel


VERTICALNET INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of VerticalNet, Inc. (NASDAQ: VERT) common stock
between February 11, 1999 and June 8, 2001, inclusive.

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

     (1) VerticalNet, Inc.,

     (2) Gene S. Godick,

     (3) Mark L. Walsh,

     (4) Michael J. Hagan,

     (5) Douglas A. Alexander,

     (6) Jeffrey C. Ballowe,

     (7) Walter W. Buckley, III,

     (8) Matthew J. Warta,

     (9) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (10) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

    (11) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company, LLC and

    (12) Wit Capital Corporation

The suit alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling Company stock pursuant to the February 11, 1999 IPO
without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the excessive commissions,
the lead underwriters allocated shares to customers at the IPO price of
$16.00 per share.  To receive the allocations at $16.00, the
underwriters' brokerage customers allegedly 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 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 $16.00 IPO price, and then
selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices. The
aftermarket prices rose to more than $138 a little over one year after
the IPO.

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 contained material
misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would
derive from the IPO transaction and the "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


ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf all persons who acquired Ziff-Davis, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZDZ)
securities between March 30, 1999 and December 12, 2000.

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

     (1) the Company,

     (2) CNET Networks, Inc., which acquired Ziff-Davis in a stock swap
         on October 17, 2000,

     (3) Timothy C. O'Brien,

     (3) Goldman, Sachs & Co.

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 the Company's initial
public offering of 8,000,000 shares of common stock, at $19.00 per
share that was commenced on or about March 30, 1999.  The complaint
alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading because it failed
to disclose:

     (i) Goldman Sachs' agreement with certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Ziff-Davis shares
         in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed
         commissions; and

    (ii) the agreement between Goldman Sachs and certain of its
         customers whereby Goldman Sachs would allocate shares in the
         IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase Ziff-Davis shares in the aftermarket 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
      

                              *********

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  * * *