CAR_Public/011025.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 25, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 209

                         Headlines


ACTION PERFORMANCE: AZ Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Denies S.D. NY Securities Suits Allegations
ART TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
BIN LADEN: Family Sues For Father's Death in 1995 Saudi Arabia Attack
BLIMPIE INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Sue To Block Merger in New Jersey

CALIFORNIA: Inmates Sue Over Delayed Release From Orange County Jail
CANADA: Judge Accused Of Lack of Impartiality Refuses To Step Down
ENRON CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
ENRON CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Initiates S.D. TX Securities Suit
FLORIDA: Firefighters Agree To Take Medical Record To Own Doctors

GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in CA
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences E.D. NY Securities Suit
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit   

LOUDCLOUD INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MONEY LAUNDERING: Lawsuit Proceeds As Judge Refuses To Dismiss Case
NETEASE.COM: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
ONYX SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.D.CA

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SHOPKO STORES: Berger Montague Begins Securities Suit In E.D. WI
TACO BELL: California Court Approves Overtime Wages Suit Settlement
TERADYNE INC.: Faruqi Faruqi Initiates Securities Suit in Massachusetts
TEXTRON/LYCOMING: Aircraft Owners To Receive Sizeable Compensation
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Defendants Move To Dismiss Suit For Lack of Proof
WASHINGTON: Foster-Care System Sued For Neglect And Inadequate Care
WESTPOINT STEVENS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. GA
WESTPOINT STEVENS: Chitwood Harley Initiates N.D. GA Securities Suit


                              *********


ACTION PERFORMANCE: AZ Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Performance Companies, Inc. prevailed as the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed without prejudice
the securities class action suit filed late 1999.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and other defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by:

     (1) making allegedly false statements about the state of our
         business and shipment of certain products to a customer, or

     (2) participating in a fraudulent scheme that was intended to
         inflate the price of common stock.

The alleged class of plaintiffs consists of all persons who purchased
our publicly traded securities between July 27, 1999 and December 16,
1999.

Fred W. Wagenhals, director and officer of APC, and Tod J. Wagenhals
and Christopher S. Besing, former directors and officers of the
Company, were also named as defendants.

On July 10, 2001, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
this lawsuit, without prejudice.

APC designs and markets collector-quality die-cast miniature replicas
of NASCAR and other racing vehicles, sells licensed motorsports apparel
and souvenirs, and manages race car drivers' fan clubs.


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Denies S.D. NY Securities Suits Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akamai Technologies denied allegations in nine securities class action
suits filed against them in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suits name as defendants the Company, several of its officers and
directors and its underwriters involved in their October 1999 initial
public offering.

The suits uniformly charge 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 the Company's initial
public offering of 9 million shares of common stock at $26.00 per share
that was completed on or about October 28, 1999.  The suits allege that
the prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose:

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

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

The Company has not answered the suit.



ART TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Art Technology Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ARTG) securities between January 25, 2001 and April 2, 2001.


The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the Company and defendants:

     (1) Jeet Singh, Chief Executive Officer, board member and a co-
         founder of the Company, and

     (2) Joseph T. Chung, co-founder of the Company, Chief Technology
         Officer, Treasurer and Chairman of the Board

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 starting on January 25, 2001,
the Company indicated that it was not effected by the negative trends
in the software industry which were effecting the Company's
competitors.

The Company further asserted that its strong revenue growth was not,
nor would it be, materially affected by the downturn in the technology
sector.

The complaint further alleges that such statements were knowingly false
and misleading when made, because 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 that many of these customers could not afford to pay the Company
for its products.

Subsequently, in April 2001, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it would incur a loss of between $0.19 to $0.22 per
share for the quarter ending March 30, 2001, which was well below
expectations.

Based on this announcement, the Company's stock price dropped to
$5.3125--a 55% decrease from the prior day's close of $12 per share on
extremely heavy trading volume.

Prior to the Company's announcement on April 2, 2001, Company insiders
sold a total of over $8.7 million of their personally-held stock.

For more details, 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 Art Technology.


BIN LADEN: Family Sues For Father's Death in 1995 Saudi Arabia Attack
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Michigan family is suing Osama bin Laden for the death of their
father in a deadly office bombing six years ago.

Department of Defense engineer Jim Allen and four other Americans were
killed in November 1995 after a truck bomb exploded next to military
offices in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Osama bin Laden, the alleged
mastermind behind the September 11 attacks, was identified as the chief
suspect in that event.

Three years ago, Allen's children filed suit against bin Laden and
other groups linked to terrorism in U.S. District Court in downtown
Detroit, seeking $5 billion.  A federal judge put the lawsuit on hold
while the family has kept silent over the suit.

Their attorney, James Elsman, hoped to turn the case into a class
action suit to cover everyone touched by an act of terrorism sponsored
by bin Laden and his alleged terrorist network.

He said the family was looking for closure, "The kids obviously aren't
going to get their father back. But in some way they want to pinch
Osama."

Other lawyers say that it's not likely that Elsman will be able to
build a class action lawsuit.


BLIMPIE INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Sue To Block Merger in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blimpie International faces a securities class action suit in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division arising from its merger
with Sandwich Acquisition Corporation.

Sandwich Acquisition is a wholly-owned subsidiary of X2Y1, Inc., a
corporation owned by an investor group assembled by Jeffrey Endervelt,
one of the Company's subfranchisors.

Upon the terms of the merger, Sandwich Acquisition will merge with
Blimpie International, with Blimpie being the surviving corporation.

Richard Johansen filed the suit on behalf of himself and other
shareholders against the Company and the following Company directors:

     (1) Anthony P. Conza,

     (2) David L. Siegel,

     (3) Patrick J. Pompeo,

     (4) Charles G. Leaness,

     (5) Alvin Katz,

     (6) Harry G. Chernoff

The suit alleges that the defendants engaged with Endervelt in an
unlawful scheme designed to acquire the Company in a going-private
transaction for grossly inadequate consideration and without full and
complete disclosure of all material information.

The Company labeled the suit "without merit".



CALIFORNIA: Inmates Sue Over Delayed Release From Orange County Jail
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Richard P. Herman took the first step towards a class action
suit against Orange County California due to the delayed release of
Orange County Jail inmates.  Herman filed the claim with the Board of
Supervisors, on behalf of inmates.

The claim alleges that inmates scheduled for release from the jail
routinely must wait 12 hours or more before the Sheriff's Department
actually sets them free, according to a recent report in the Los
Angeles Times.

The claim further states that the county is guilty of false
imprisonment and civil rights violations against people detained at the
jail for misdemeanor offenses and traffic warrants, as well as against
those arrested but never charged with a crime.

Ordinarily, these inmates should be released shortly after appearing in
court, Herman said.  But they are often delayed for hours and sometimes
a good part of the day, because of logistical and bureaucratic
obstacles in the jail system.

The experience of former inmate Fred Pierce, 30, illustrates what can
happen:  Herman said Pierce was arrested during a traffic stop because
he had outstanding traffic tickets.  He was booked into the jail, and
after appearing in court, a judge ordered him released.  But it took
another 12 hours before Pierce was allowed to leave custody, according
to the claim.

A Sheriff Department's spokesman declined to comment because officials
had not yet received a copy of the claim.


CANADA: Judge Accused Of Lack of Impartiality Refuses To Step Down
------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian justice John Brockenshire refused to withdraw from the class
action suit against the government over the mishandling of war
veterans' money.

Lawyers for the government asked Brockenshire to step down after he
reprimanded them in a meeting in his chambers, unleashing a "high
volume verbal barrage" that left at least one of them "speechless."

The lawyers also revealed that the judge denounced an expert report
they planned to file as "trash" and complained of typical government
"stupidity."  His comments during the meeting allegedly revealed a lack
of impartiality.

Brockenshire said the tirade was a fleeting outburst sparked by the
government's "egregious" conduct and that there was "no air of reality"
to the notion that he had an "anti-government" bias.

A conference that day was arranged to work out details for a later
court hearing into the question of how much the federal government owes
in damages to veterans.

Last year, Brockenshire ruled that Ottawa breached its duty to mentally
incompetent veterans whose finances it managed, by failing to pay
interest on their accounts.

The case is scheduled to resume in Windsor on Nov. 5, but there's no
indication the federal government is ready to reconcile. A justice
department spokesperson said the judge's decision may be appealed.


ENRON CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) common stock, between
January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and:

     (1) Kenneth Lay,

     (2) Jeffrey K. Skilling and

     (3) Andrew Fastow

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

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a series of
statements concerning its business, financial results and operations
which failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Company's Broadband Services Division was
         experiencing declining demand for bandwidth and the Company's
         effort to create a trading market for bandwidth were not
         meeting with success as many of the market participants were
         not creditworthy;

    (ii) that the Company's operating results were materially
         overstated as result of the Company failing to timely write-
         down the value of its investments with certain limited
         partnerships which were managed by the Company's chief
         financial officer; and

   (iii) that the Company was failing to write-down impaired assets on
         a timely basis in accordance with generally accepted
         accounting principles.

In October 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing that
the Company was taking non-recurring charges of $1.01 billion after-
tax, of ($1.11) loss per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2001,
the period ending September 30, 2001.

Subsequently, the Company revealed that a material portion of the
responsibility related to the unwinding of investments with certain
limited partnerships was controlled by its chief financial officer.
The Company claimed it would be eliminating more than $1 billion in
shareholder equity as a result of its unwinding of the investments.

As this news began to be assimilated by the market, the price of the
Company's common stock dropped significantly.

Company insiders disposed of over $73 million of their personally held
common stock to unsuspecting investors.

For more information, contact Susan Gross or Deborah Gross by Mail:
1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: 215-561-
3600 by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernardmgross.com


ENRON CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Initiates S.D. TX Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corp. (NYSE:ENE) common stock during
the period between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, inclusive.
The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

The complaint charges the defendants of violating Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The defendants allegedly issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between January 18, 2000 and
October 17, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's common stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Enron issued a series of
statements concerning its business, financial results and operations
which failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company's Broadband Services Division was
         experiencing declining demand for bandwidth and the Company's
         efforts to create a trading market for bandwidth were not
         meeting with success as many of the market participants were
         not creditworthy;

     (2) that the Company's operating results were materially
         overstated as a result of the Company failing to timely write-
         down the value of its investments with certain limited
         partnerships which were managed by the Company's chief
         financial officer; and

     (3) that the Company was failing to write-down impaired assets on
         a timely basis in accordance with GAAP.

In October 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing that it
was taking non-recurring charges of $1.01 billion after-tax, or ($1.11)
loss per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2001, the period ending
September 30, 2001.

Subsequently, Enron revealed a material portion of the responsibility
related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited
partnerships was controlled by their chief financial officer.  As a
result of the unwinding of these investments, the Company would be
eliminating more than $1 billion in shareholder equity.

As this news began to be assimilated by the market, the price of the
Company's common stock dropped significantly.

During the class period, Company insiders disposed of over $73 million
of their personally held common stock to unsuspecting investors.

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


FLORIDA: Firefighters Agree To Take Medical Record To Own Doctors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Orlando and its firefighters agreed on a plan to allow
firefighters to have their medical records reviewed by their own
doctors.

The firefighters filed a suit against the city last July alleging that
city administrators intentionally compromised medical care to cut costs
at their expense.  The suit contended that the doctors in the city's
employee health clinic failed to them about years of abnormal test
results that showed up during physical exams.

Under terms of the agreement, the city will allow the more than 300
firefighters the option to take their city medical records to private
doctors to ensure that they don't have an illness they were not told
about.

The agreement will not affect the pending lawsuit. The firefighters
union still wants a full investigation.

Union president Steve Clelland said that the agreement was a step in
the right direction, "..We're leaps and bounds from where we were four
months ago."

The firefighters contend that they were not informed about abnormal
test results from exams given at city-run medical clinics for several
years.  The hidden symptoms were left untreated for so long, the
employees developed life-threatening diseases that include hepatitis,
heart disorders, lung problems, high blood pressure and hearing loss.

City officials said that it has always been standard procedure for
doctors at the city's clinic to notify patients of any problems found
in annual physicals. They acknowledged, however, there is no written
policy requiring notification.  Spokeswoman Susan Blexud said that
before 1999, the employees were usually notified by a phone call.

The city turned over operation of the clinic to Orlando Regional
Healthcare System two years ago after years of complaints from union
officials about shoddy care and poor communication.


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull and Brody lodged a securities class action on behalf of
all purchasers of Genesis Intermedia, Inc. (NADSAQ:GENI) securities
between December 21, 1999 and September 25, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company, CEO Ramy El-Batrawi
and officer Douglas E. Jacobson.

The defendants allegedly issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition as well as its present and
future business prospects.

More specifically, beginning in December 1999, the Company began
executing a plan to artificially inflate the price of its stock by
providing financial favors to financial analysts in exchange for
analysts issuing false positive reports to the public.  It was
allegedly the defendants' intention not to reveal to the public the
financial incentives they were providing the analysts.

The fraudulent scheme succeeded in driving up the price of Company
stock 50% in December 1999 as the public began reading glowing reports
issued by the analysts.

By February 2000, as more false positive reports were disseminated to
the public, Company stock soared nearly 80% on high volume trading.
By March 2000, the price of the Company's stock had risen more than
700% above the price the stock had traded at just months earlier.
Between March 2000 and June 2001, ten additional, falsely positive
reports concerning the Company were issued by the analysts.

After the close of the market on September 25, 2001, trading in the
Company's shares were halted by NASDAQ pending an investigation. Less
than two weeks later, El-Batrawi resigned his position with the
Company.

The Company's stock has not resumed trading.

For more details, contact Marc L. Godino by Phone: 888-388-4605 by E-
mail: mgodino@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.secfraud.com.


KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of KeySpan Corporation (NYSE:
KSE) from April 26, 2000 through July 17, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.

The defendants allegedly issued false and misleading statements
concerning its business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants are liable as
participants in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts.

The scheme allegedly:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding the Company's
         business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of
         the Company's common stock;

     (2) enabled the individual defendants to sell their personally-
         held shares of common stock reaping proceeds of more than $29
         million; and

     (3) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase
         the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart 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


KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences E.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of KeySpan Corp. (NYSE:KSE) common stock during
the period between April 26, 2000 and July 17, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.   The complaint charges the defendants with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants are liable as participants in a
fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or
deceit on purchasers of the Company's common stock by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material
adverse facts.

Allegedly, the scheme:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding the Company's
         business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of
         the Company's common stock;

     (2) enabled the individual defendants to sell their personally-
         held shares of common stock reaping proceeds of more than $29
         million; and

     (3) caused plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
         the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices

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


KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of KeySpan Corp. (NYSE: KSE) stock during the
period from April 26, 2001 through July 17, 2001, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, charges the Company and certain of its senior
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As the complaint alleges, the violations stem from defendants' failure
to disclose what they in fact knew during the class period:

     (1) that serious and material "accounting inaccuracies" had been
         discovered at a Company subsidiary; and

     (2) that as a result of the need to correct the inaccuracies, the
         Company would need to incur a substantial charge against
         Earnings

In July 2001, the defendants revealed to the public that "accounting
inaccuracies" existed and that they were of such a magnitude that, in
order to correct them, the Company would incur a $30 million charge,
turning what would have been a second quarter profit into a second
quarter loss.

The Company's stock, which during the class period had traded at over
$40 per share, fell in response to this news to close at $32 per share.

Shortly prior to making this public revelation, however, numerous
Company officers and directors named as defendants in the complaint
received millions of dollars from the insider selling of their shares
at prices allegedly artificially inflated by their failure to disclose
material information.

For further details, contact Ira M. Press or Orie Braun by Mail: 830
Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-
2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll-free) or visit the firm's Website:
www.kmslaw.com


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit   
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Loudcloud, Inc.
(NASDAQ:LDCL) issued pursuant to the March 8, 2001 prospectus.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus used by
defendants to sell $150 million worth of stock was false and misleading
because, among other things, it failed to disclose:

     (1) the Company's plan to substantially reduce its work force and
         to restructure immediately following the offering;

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

     (3) that a major contract to which one of the underwriters was a
         party was being terminated; and

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

As the truth about the Company and its operations reached the market,
the price of Company shares fell to less than $2.00 per share.

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


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Loudcloud, Inc. (NASDAQ:LDCL) common stock
issued pursuant to the March 8, 2001 prospectus.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.  The suit charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus used by defendants to sell
$150 million worth of Company stock was false and misleading because,
among other things, it failed to disclose:

     (1) the Company's plan to substantially reduce its work force and
         to restructure immediately following the offering;

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

     (3) that a major contract to which one of the underwriters was a
         party was being terminated; and

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

As the truth about the Company and its operations reached the market,
the price of Company shares fell to less than $2.00 per share.

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


MONEY LAUNDERING: Lawsuit Proceeds As Judge Refuses To Dismiss Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A state court judge refused to dismiss a class action suit against
major Swiss and Mexican banks and several individuals for their role in
laundering funds from property thefts perpetrated by drug addicts.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Mohr also allowed plaintiffs to
include additional facts directly linking drug money launderers and the
international banks holding their accounts to thefts of personal
property in Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs have until January 4,2002 to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs are individuals who have had their personal property
stolen by crack addicts to purchase cocaine in South Central Los
Angeles.

The defendants include major Swiss and Mexican banks that have
previously been convicted of money laundering in federal criminal
cases. Several individual international money launderers -- along with
individual cocaine cartel members -- are named in the suit.

The suit based its allegations on "Operation Casablanca," the U.S.
Customs undercover criminal investigation of banks involved with drug
money laundering.  "Operation Casablanca" resulted in guilty pleas by
three of the defendants in this suit.

This case closely patterns a class action suit filed by Holocaust
victims against Swiss Banks for their role in handling funds that were
attained as a result of the theft of Jewish personal property by the
Nazis.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S., the
prominent role played by drug trafficking and money laundering in
funding terrorism has gained significant attention.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney Dermot D. Givens says that this case "can
help stop the money flow from drugs to terrorist."

He further emphasized that it was time for the defendant banks to take
responsibility for the dirty money that keeps turning up in their
vaults.

The defendants now face a potential lengthy legal process that may
result in a sizeable legal judgment.  The ruling also places the Swiss
banks in the rare position of having to be subjected to American legal
discovery rules which can result in their having to reveal their
handling of "secret" Swiss bank accounts.


NETEASE.COM: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the American Depositary Shares (ADS) of
NetEase.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTESE) during the period between July 3, 2000
and August 31, 2001, inclusive.

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

     (1) King F. Lai,

     (2) William Lei Ding,

     (3) Helen Haiwen He,

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

     (5) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,

     (6) Chase Securities, Inc.,

     (7) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and

     (8) UBS Warburg LLC

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) 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 defendants reportedly issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between July 3, 2000 and August 31,
2001.

In May 2001, NetEase disclosed that it had discovered that $1 million
in contracts had been improperly reported as revenue and as a result,
it would delay announcing its financial results for the first quarter
of 2001.  Subsequently, in June 2001, the Company announced that the
revenue overstatement appeared to affect its full year 2000 financial
statements and the amount of the overstatement would be approximately
$3 million.

Then, in August 2001, NetEase finally revealed the full extent of the
overstatement.  The Company announced that it would be restating all of
its year 2000 financial statements because $4.3 million in revenue had
been overstated.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus and registration statement
issued in connection with the initial public offering (IPO) of the
Company's ADSs were materially false and misleading because they
contained artificially inflated financial results for the first quarter
of 2000.

Following the IPO, defendants issued press releases announcing
NetEase's quarterly 2000 and full year 2000 financial results which
were materially false and misleading because they overstated the
Company's financial performance.

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


ONYX SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Onyx Software Corp. (NASDAQ:
ONXS) securities between January 10, 2001 and August 10, 2001,
including those who purchased stock pursuant to Onyx's secondary stock
offering in February 2001.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, against the Company, CEO Brent R. Frei and
Interim Chief Financial Officer Amy E. Kelleran.

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 during the class period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on January 9, 2001, Onyx
issued a press release announcing the acquisition of RevenueLab and
hosted a conference call to discuss the acquisition and its business
and prospects.  As a result, the Company's stock increased from $9.8
per share to over $14 per share.

The complaint further alleges the Company continued to publicly
disseminate favorable, but false, financial results during the class
period, causing its stock to be artificially inflated.

In February 2001, the Company announced a firm underwritten offering of
2.5 million shares at $13.50 per share. As a result of the alleged
artificial inflation, the Company successfully completed the secondary
offering, raising net proceeds of $31.5 million.

In April 2001, the Company revealed that its 1st Quarter 2001 results
would be significantly lower than previously calculated with revenues
of only $26 to $27 million and a large loss.

As a result of this disappointing news, the stock dropped to below $3
per share. Despite the drop, however, the stock continued to trade at
artificially high prices because the defendants concealed the fact that
the Company's 4th Quarter 2000 results had been materially misstated.

Finally, after the close of the market on August 10, 2001, defendants
revealed that the Company's 4th Quarter 2000 results had been
materially misstated and would have to be corrected.

For more details, contact George Peters, Derek Behnke, Michael Miske,
Gregory M. 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 ONYX.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.D.CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo LLP commenced a
securities class action against Providian Financial Corporation
(NYSE:PVN), charging the company with deceiving investors.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all investors who bought Company
stock from June 6, 2001 to October 18, 2001.

The San Francisco-based company is one of the largest issuers of Visa
and MasterCard credit cards in the United States.

The complaint says Providian failed to tell investors that it had
changed from a policy and practice of immediately writing-off
receivables upon receipt of electronic notification that customers had
filed for bankruptcy, to a policy and practice of accumulating or
"batching" bankruptcy notifications and then writing off those
receivables once per month.

That change, which occurred in late June, allowed the Company to defer
recognition of some $30 million in charge-offs from the second to the
third quarter of 2001.

As a result, the Providian's reported earnings for the second quarter
were inflated by six cents per share, and its managed charge-off rate
was understated by 40 basis points.

The complaint also alleges that three top officers of the Company sold
roughly $22 million worth of stock at artificially inflated prices.

When the Company announced on October 18, 2001 that its financial
results were far lower than what the defendants had previously led
investors to believe, the price of its stock dropped to $5.15 per share
- more than 90% below the class period high of $59.80.

For more information, contact Chauncey D. Steele IV or Michael G. Lange
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.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Providian Financial Corporation (NYSE: PVN)
publicly traded securities during the period between June 6, 2001 and
October 11, 2001.

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

The suit alleges the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements concerning Providian's operations and prospects
for 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2001.

In late June 2001, the Company changed the way it processes its
bankruptcy filings and also changed when it recognizes losses,
deferring the recognition of approximately $30 million of charge-offs
from June into July.

The Company allegedly manipulated its financial statements for 2nd
Quarter 2001 and shaved 40 basis points off its 2nd Quarter 2001
managed net charge-off rate of 10.3% and boosted reported earning per
share (EPS) by $0.06.

Without this change, the loss rate would have been 10.7%. This is well
above defendants' indications of 9.5%-10%.

Defendants made no mention of this change on the conference call or in
the Company's 2nd Quarter 2001 10-Q Form filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In fact, management only admitted this change after they came under
pressure from analysts following a flood of calls to their investor
relations department in late August 2001.

During the Class Period, taking advantage of the inflation in Providian
stock, Company insider defendants sold almost $22 million worth of
their own stock at artificially inflated prices of as much as $49.30
per share. These sales were out of line with their prior trading
history.

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


SHOPKO STORES: Berger Montague Begins Securities Suit In E.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC lodged a class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased securities of ShopKo Stores, Inc. (NYSE:SKO)
from March 9, 2000 through November 9, 2000, inclusive.  The suit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin this week.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The defendants allegedly issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between March 9, 2000 and November 9,
2000, thereby artificially inflating the price of ShopKo securities.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued statements concerning
the integration of its acquisition of Pamida Holding Corp. (the owner
and operator of Pamida discount stores), the Company's financial
results and prospects.

The suit alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things, that
the Company was experiencing significant shipping and inventory control
problems at Pamida's distribution centers.

In November 2000, the Company issued a press release announcing its
earnings for the third quarter of 2000 reporting a loss of $0.23 per
share -- far below the $.02 to $.07 per share previously represented by
the Company.

The Company also revealed that it was experiencing problems at Pamida's
distribution centers and that those problems accounted for the
Company's reduced earnings.

For further details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Robin Switzenbaum,
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtector@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
www.investorprotect.com


TACO BELL: California Court Approves Overtime Wages Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A California State Court approved the settlement in the class action
suit filed by former employees of fast-food company Taco Bell
Corporation.

The suit, entitled Mynaf, et al. v. Taco Bell Corporation, was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California of the County of Santa
Clara.

Two former restaurant general managers and two former assistant
restaurant general managers filed the suit on behalf of all current and
former Taco Bell restaurant general managers and assistant restaurant
general managers in California.

The lawsuit alleged:

     (1) violations of California wage and hour laws involving unpaid
         overtime wages;

     (2) violations of the State Labor Code's record-keeping
         requirements; and

     (3) unfair business practices

In September 1998, the Court certified a class of approximately 3,000
current and former assistant restaurant general managers and restaurant
general managers.

The Company petitioned the Appellate Court to review the trial Court's
certification order, which the court denied.

Taco Bell then filed a petition for review with the California Supreme
Court, and the petition was subsequently denied.

Class notices were mailed on August 31, 1999 to over 3,400 class
members and in January 2001, trial in the suit commenced.

However, before the conclusion of the trial, the parties reached an
agreement to settle the suit for an undisclosed amount, and entered
into a stipulation of discontinuance of the case.


TERADYNE INC.: Faruqi Faruqi Initiates Securities Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi and Faruqi LLP lodged a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Teradyne, Inc. (NYSE:TER) common stock between July 14,
2000 and October 17, 2000, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its executive
officers.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The defendants allegedly concealed the fact that the Company was
experiencing declining orders in its semiconductors testing systems
division, which would cause the Company's growth rate to slow from
historic levels.

Moreover, the decision to conceal this adverse information from
investors was carried out to facilitate the acquisition of Herco
Technology Corporation and Perception Laminates, Inc., d/b/a Synthane
Taylor, using artificially inflated common stock as currency.

When the truth about the Company's business was revealed to the public,
the price of common stock dropped precipitously.

For more information, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
by E-mail: Avozz@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.faruqilaw.com


TEXTRON/LYCOMING: Aircraft Owners To Receive Sizeable Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former owners of Piper Malibu Mirage aircraft could receive
significant compensation for the loss in market value of their aircraft
if a settlement proposed in a class action lawsuit is accepted by
Textron/Lycoming and New Piper and approved by the U.S. District Court.

"The evidence shows clearly that both Textron/Lycoming and New Piper
knew of bearing problems with the engine installed in these aircraft
since at least 1996, yet both companies stringently resisted taking
steps to correct it," said Fred Misko, Jr., the Dallas attorney
representing the plaintiffs.

"Finally, on August 31, 2000, in the face of undeniable evidence and
mounting adverse publicity, the two companies admitted that a safety of
flight risk exists with the AE2A engine."

He further added "This settlement proposal is not about fixing the
problem, which the manufacturers allege to be resolved by bearing
replacements, but about ensuring that owners and former owners of these
aircraft are compensated for the significant loss in market value of
their aircraft."

The class action lawsuit was filed on September 19, 2000 against New
Piper and Textron/Lycoming on behalf of some 1,200-1,500 current and
former owners of Malibu Mirage aircraft.

Filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, the
lawsuit alleges claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act for misrepresentations and wrongdoings by  
Textron/Lycoming and New Piper related to the TIO-540-AE2A engine.

The engine's manufacturer, Textron/Lycoming, touted the TIO-540-AE2A
engine as the "strongest, most reliable six cylinder engine in General
Aviation."

Both New Piper and Textron/Lycoming specifically represented that the
engine had a 2,000-hour TBO (Time Between Overhaul).

In actual use, however, Mirage owners have experienced consistently
premature failures that have required engine overhaul or replacement at
one-third or less than the service life published by the manufacturers.

"Clearly, Malibu Mirage owners have suffered diminished market value
for their aircraft as a result of the engine failures, the premature
overhauls required as a result and the general inability of the
aircraft to meet published performance specifications," said Misko.

After twelve years of production, Textron/Lycoming admitted in a
Mandatory Service Advisory issued over a year ago that a safety of
flight risk exists with these aircraft.

The lawsuit contends that all of the owners in this class have been
damaged by Textron/Lycoming's and New Piper's concealing information
and making serious misrepresentations regarding the engine's 2000-hour
time between overhaul service life and reliability.

For purposes of the proposed settlement, class members are divided into
two groups:

     (1) Current Owners, who are eligible for both General Relief and
         Individualized Relief, and

     (2) Former Owners who are eligible only for Individualized Relief.

General Relief is designed to provide current owners with extended
warranty protection for the Malibu Mirage engine, as well as revised
operating procedures that will help ensure safer, more reliable engine
performance.

Individualized Relief is designed to reimburse current and former
owners for the diminished value of their aircraft due to the aircraft's
inability to meet TBO and the aircraft's damaged product reputation.

Diminished value is determined by a number of factors, including the
year model of the aircraft, proof of ownership and the period of
ownership.

If the settlement is accepted and approved, class members who are
former owners could accept relief in cash or in the form of a credit
for use in purchasing a new New Piper aircraft.

Class members who are current owners could accept relief in cash or in
the form of a credit for use in purchasing a new New Piper aircraft, a
Textron/Lycoming engine/overhaul credit, an Enhanced Flight Group
upgrade credit, or a JetPROP conversion credit.

The settlement has been proposed to Textron/Lycoming and New Piper
corporate management. No firm response has been received from the
companies.

Full details about the proposed settlement and settlement documents can
be accessed at the Website: www.TextronPiperLitigation.com.

For more information, also contact: Fred Misko, Jr. P.C. by Mail:
Turtle Creek Centre 3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 1000 Dallas,
Texas  75219 by Phone: (214) 443-8000, (800) 443-8088 by Fax: (214)
443-8010 by E-mail: misko@misko.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.misko.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Defendants Move To Dismiss Suit For Lack of Proof
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The four national tobacco companies in the West Virginia smokers class
action suit asked Circuit Court Judge Arthur Recht to dismiss the case
after the plaintiffs finished presenting evidence Tuesday.

The defense motions contend the smokers have failed to prove their case
and ask the court to rule in favor of tobacco giants R.J. Reynolds,
Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard.

The suit was filed on behalf of 250,000 West Virginians who want the
companies to provide a medical monitoring program for smokers who yet
to exhibit symptoms of smoking-related diseases.  The class includes
people who have smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for at least five
years, but who are not sick.

The class members contend cigarette smoke is proven to cause lung
cancer, emphysema and other lung diseases.  They also argue cigarettes
have been produced for decades with "wanton and willful" disregard for
public health.

The tobacco companies have countered that smoking was an "inherently
risky" practice and that the best way to prevent disease was to quit
smoking.

The prosecution presented a series of witnesses to strengthen their
case, the last being a videotaped deposition of Bennett LeBow, a Miami
financier who bought Liggett Group in 1986.  A decade later, he broke
ranks with the industry and released documents that showed cigarette
makers had long known their products caused cancer.  LeBow said he
handed over the documents because he wanted to have no part in a "cover
up" and that he wanted a "clean break."  Under further questioning,
LeBow admitted Liggett was in dire financial straits when it decided to
cooperate with 46 state attorneys general suing the industry to recoup
health care costs. Under the deal Liggett made with the attorneys
general, it was relieved of paying into a huge cash settlement with the
states as long as its market share remains below 1.67 percent.

Jurors were told to return Thursday, when the defense is scheduled to
call its first witness.

It is the first medical monitoring case of its kind to go to trial in
the United States, forcing the tobacco companies to defend what is
essentially a product liability claim.


WASHINGTON: Foster-Care System Sued For Neglect And Inadequate Care
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington's Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) faces a
class action suit filed in Whatcom County Superior Court accusing it of
neglecting the needs of foster children in its foster-care system.

The suit says the system ignored a 20-year pattern of neglect by
frequently moving its most physically and emotionally troubled foster
children from place to place, often to the youngsters' detriment.
The suit also said the department denied stable homes and education to
about 30% of the 10,000 foster children in its custody at any given
time.

Tim Farris, attorney for the plaintiffs said that the foster-care
system was not in a crisis, but the "children are in a crisis."
He showed the jury several cases that had them wrinkling brows and
shaking their heads.

Kelly Corr, attorney representing the DSHS, said that state social
workers exercised good professional judgment, particularly while the
department remains understaffed and overworked.  Many times,
caseworkers face a dilemma when they must take children away from an
abusive foster-care arrangement, and when many children enter the
system emotionally damaged by abusive parents.

Corr will try to convince the jury that new management at the
department's upper levels has begun to correct the problems, and that
the number of children being moved around is now decreasing.

The jury trial ultimately will decide whether the foster-care portion
of DSHS should be placed under court supervision.

Last month, the state agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle the original
claim by the 13 children. Half the children are still in foster care.
Each child will receive $100,000 placed into a trust until he or she is
30 years old.

The class-action lawsuit grew out of the original claim.


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP filed a securities suit on behalf of
purchasers of WestPoint Stevens Inc. (NYSE:WXS) common stock during the
period between February 10, 1999 and October 10, 2000, inclusive.
The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that to boost Company stock on February 10, 1999
and again on April 15, 1999, defendants caused the Company to report
better-than-expected 4th Quarter 1998 and 1st Quarter 1999 results.

The Company also assured investors and analysts that:

     (1) its business remained extremely strong,

     (2) demand for all of its products was good,

     (3) its inventories were under control, and

     (4) it remained postured to achieve revenue and EPS growth of 5%
         and 20%, respectively, going forward and was increasing its
         1999 and 2000 EPS forecasts to $1.82-$1.85 and $2.10-$2.20,
         respectively.

Based on these better-than-expected 1st Quarter 1999 results and
defendants' positive commentary on the Company's business, Company
stock advanced to its class period high of $37-9/16 in late April 1999
from $25-3/8 at the beginning of the period.

When the Company reported its 2nd Quarter and 3rd Quarter 1999 results,
it again assured investors that its business was very strong.

It also told investors that while its inventories had increased,
especially towels, the increased towel inventory did not pose any
significant risk of loss to the Company because it was basic solid
colored goods with core value.

The Company continued to forecast strong revenue and EPS growth for the
balance of 1999 and 2000, including 2000 EPS of $2.10-$2.20.

On June 28, 2000, defendants announced that:

     (i) the Company's Eight-Point Program would ensure strong
         performance in the future;

    (ii) momentum was building for strong prospects throughout 2000;

   (iii) inventory was now on target to below $400 million by year-end;

    (iv) the Company was still on track to report EPS of $2.08+ and
         $2.40 in 2000 and 2001, respectively.

As a result, Company stock stabilized in the $10-$15 range through the
remainder of the class period.

However, by late September 2000, defendants knew that it would be
impossible for them to continue to conceal the severe deterioration in
the Company's business any longer.

They also knew that once the Company reported its 3rdQ 00 results, it
would be apparent to the market how horrible business was actually
performing and the stock would collapse.

In an attempt to cause the stock to make a "soft landing" for what they
knew would be horrible 2000 results, defendants on September 27, 2000
announced that 3rd Quarter 2000 results would be flat with 3rd Quarter
1999 results, in the same press release in which the Company also
announced a new licensing agreement with Disney.

The Company's stock declined only slightly on this news to $11-9/16 due
to defendants' positive statements.

Then, the Company revealed that 3rd Quarter 2000 sales would actually
decline 3% from the prior year, with earnings of only $0.55-$0.60 per
share, lower than prior guidance.

On this news, the Company's stock declined to below $9 per share.

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


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Chitwood Harley Initiates N.D. GA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood and Harley commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Westpoint Stevens Inc. (NYSE:WXS) common stock between
February 10, 1999 and October 10,2000.

The case, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, names the Company and defendants:

     (1) Holcombe T. Green, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Morgan M. Schuessler, former Executive Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) William F. Crumley, former Executive Vice President

     (4) Thomas J. Ward, former President and Chief Operating Officer,

     (5) Gerald B. Mitchell, director,

     (6) Dale C. Williams, vice president, and

     (7) Charles W. McCall, director

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

The Company describes itself as a manufacturer and marketer of bed and
bath products (sheets, pillowcases, comforters, towels, blankets, and
related products) for distribution to chain and department stores.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's common stock.

For example, the complaint alleges that the defendants routinely hid
the Company's sagging business prospects and overstated its sales by
improperly shipping merchandise before it was requested.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants repeatedly misled
investors concerning the extent of the Company's inventory problems and
how those problems would ultimately affect the Company's business.

As a result of misrepresentations like these, the investors who
purchased the Company's common stock during the class period were
tricked into paying more for the stock than it was actually worth.

During this period of artificial inflation, defendants Crumley, McCall,
Mitchell, Schuessler, and Williams allegedly took advantage of their
insider status to sell hundreds of thousands of their own shares at
artificially high prices for millions in proceeds.

At the end of the class period, after having sold their own stock, the
defendants revealed that the Company's sales had declined from prior
periods, and earnings per share were far short of expectations.

As a result of these announcements, Company shares fell to less than $9
per share (after having traded at more than $34 per share during the
Class Period).

The complaint asserts claims for securities fraud against each of the
defendants, alleging that each is responsible for the artificial
inflation of Company stock prices during the class period.

For more details, contact Jeff Konis or David Bain by Mail: 2900
Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by
Phone: (888) 873-3999 (toll free) by E-mail: jhk@classlaw.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.classlaw.com.

                              *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *