CAR_Public/011026.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, October 26, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 210


                          Headlines


ART TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates C.D. CA Securities Suit
ARKANSAS: Plaintiffs To Appeal Decision To Delay Racial Profiling Suit
BOEING COMPANY: Judge Certifies Women Employees' Discrimination Suit
CLARENT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. Texas

COMPAQ COMPUTER: Asks Texas Federal Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
DQE INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: TX Suit Dismissed For Lack of Jurisdiction
ENRON CORPORATION: Berger Montague Commences S.D. TX Securities Suit

ENRON CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. TX
ENRON CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. TX Securities Suit
ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
FORD MOTOR: Parties Near Settlement Agreement In Faulty Ignition Suit
GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Weiss Yourman Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit

HAYES LEMMERZ: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI
INTELLI-CHECK INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates New Jersey Securities Suit
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MEMPHIS: Tennessee Supreme Court Lets Commercial Property Levy Stand
NETEASE.COM: Revenue Overstatement Draws S.D. NY Securities Suits

ONYX SOFTWARE: Keller Rohrback Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA
RAILTRACK PLC: Investors Meet To Consider Suit Over Company's Closure
SHOPKO STORES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
SPRINT CORPORATION: Sued By IN Customers Over Hidden Service Charges
TERADYNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Massachusetts

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Trial Proceeds As Judge Refuses WV Suit Dismissal
TYSON FOODS: Oklahoma Residents Sue Due To Grand Lake Pollution
WESTPOINT STEVENS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in N.D GA


                           *********


ART TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates C.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired Art Technology Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ARTG) securities between January 25, 2001 and April 2, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company, Chief Executive Officer
Jeet Singh and Chairman of the Board Joseph Chung.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint also alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued to the investing public false and misleading information that
materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects.  Moreover,
the Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make
its prior statements not misleading and as a result, the Company's
stock price was artificially inflated.

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


ARKANSAS: Plaintiffs To Appeal Decision To Delay Racial Profiling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Joseph Berra of the Los Angeles-based Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund said he may appeal the ruling delaying the
lawsuit that accuses Rogers, Arkansas police of racial profiling, the
Associated Press recently reported.

U.S. District Judge Jimm L. Hendren granted Mayor Steve Womack's
request to postpone the case because the mayor was called to active
duty in Egypt to take part in an international peacekeeping mission on
the Sinai Peninsula. His deployment is expected to last six months.

Berra, attorney for the plaintiffs, said that since the delay of the
lawsuit is based on the mayor's call to military duty, he may drop
Womack as defendant and continue the suit.  

"The broader struggle continues, and it's certainly not the death knell
to the case," said Berra.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims police routinely stop
Hispanic motorists without cause, ask them for immigration papers and
then detain them until federal immigration officials arrive.

In the lawsuit, Miguel and Nora Virginia Lopez say police stopped their
vehicle, searched it and asked them to produce immigration papers.  The
Lopezes were not ticketed, the suit says.


BOEING COMPANY: Judge Certifies Women Employees' Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman gave class action status to the
discrimination suit filed against The Boeing Company by female
employees.

Twenty eight former and current female workers at the Company's
Washington, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri plants filed the suit, saying
that the No. 1 plane maker paid women less than men and denied them the
same career opportunities as men.

The suit seeks equality in pay, promotions and other workplace benefits
on behalf of as many as 42,000 of the Company's female employees hired
after February 25,1994.

Women working in the company's Puget Sound-area plants in Washington
can join the class, which lets the workers pool their legal resources;
it also saves the Chicago-based company from having to fight off
numerous individual suits.

However, Pechman denied the women's request to form a broader class
representing workers in 27 states, saying that the lawyers for the
women had "cast their net too wide."

A lawyer representing the women said that the ruling "allows the women
to move forward and reform a system that has systematically oppressed
them."

Company spokesman Ken Mercer expressed disappointment over the judge's
decision, saying "We believe the suit doesn't have any merit.right now
we're reviewing our options."


CLARENT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody filed a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Clarent Corporation (NASDAQ:CLRN), common stock between
April 19, 2001 and September 4, 2001, inclusive.

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

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by, among other things, filing with the SEC and reporting
to the investing public materially false and misleading financial
statements concerning the Company's financial accounting and/or its
internal controls for the first and second quarters of this year.

The complaint alleges that in September 2001, the Company issued a
press release stating, among other things, 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."

The Company further revealed that its revenues for the second half of
fiscal 2001 and for fiscal 2002 will be substantially below previously
anticipated levels, and that the related losses will be significantly
larger than expected.

Trading on the Company's stock was halted in response to the Company's
announcement.

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


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Compaq Computer Corporation faces a consolidated securities class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

The suit originally arose from several class action suits filed in 1998
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from July 10,1997 through March 6,1998, alleges violations
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suit alleges the defendants withheld information and made
misleading statements about channel inventory and factoring of
receivables in order to inflate the market price of the Company's
common stock. The suit further alleges that certain individual
defendants sold Compaq common stock at the inflated prices.

The court entered an order granting class certification, which the
Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.

In July 2001, the Fifth Circuit Appellate Court vacated the federal
court's order certifying a class and appointing class representatives
and remanded the case to the federal court for further proceedings in
accordance with its opinion.  In August 2001, the plaintiffs' filed a
petition for rehearing before Fifth Circuit Appellate Court.

Compaq filed an opposition to the petition and is awaiting a ruling
from the court.  All discovery on the suit has been stayed.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Asks Texas Federal Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Compaq Computer Corporation asked the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division to dismiss the second
amended securities class action against them.

The suit arose from several securities suits filed in 1999 on behalf of
purchasers of Compaq common stock between January 27, 1999 and April
9, 1999.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act;
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The suit alleges that the defendants issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's prospects in
1999 in order to inflate the market price of its common stock. The suit
further alleges that certain individual defendants sold Company common
stock at inflated prices.

In December 2000, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint after finding that it failed to comply with pleading
requirements under the law.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in January 2001, which
the Company immediately moved to dismiss.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired Comverse Technology, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CMVT) securities between April 3, 2001 and July 10, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and officers Kobi Alexander
and David Kreinberg.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued
to the investing public false and misleading information that
materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects.  Moreover,
the Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make
its prior statements not misleading.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in 1998 Company issued
$250,000,000 worth of Convertible Subordinated Debentures at 4.5% which
were due 2005 and callable as early as July 2001.

The Debentures were convertible, at the option of the holder, into
shares of the Company's common stock or cash.

However, by April 2001, the telecom industry had become severely
depressed, the federal reserve continued to drop interest rates and the
Company's stock price was steadily eroding.

Repaying the Company's outstanding debt by converting it into shares
rather than paying cash became a paramount concern for defendants. To
effectuate this goal, defendants artificially inflated their stock
price by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's revenues and new customer wins.

Days after announcing record results for the first quarter 2001, the
Company called for the redemption of its 4.5% Debentures giving bond
holders until July 9, 2001 to convert their debt.  A day after the
redemption deadline, and in stark contrast to their prior
representations, the Company shocked the market by issuing earnings
warnings on the next three quarters.

The market reacted harshly to the news with shares of the Company
dropping 33% on heavy volume, reaching its lowest trading level since
March 1999.

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


DQE INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of DQE, Inc. (NYSE:DQE) between
December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court, Western District
of Pennsylvania, alleges the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market between December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the Company
issued positive statements concerning the significant and positive
impact that DQE Enterprises, Inc., the Company's investment subsidiary,
was having, and would continue to have, on its financial results.

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

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

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

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

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

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
      

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: TX Suit Dismissed For Lack of Jurisdiction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
dismissed the class action suit against Echostar Communications
Corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Satellite Dealers Supply, Inc. filed the suit on behalf of a nationwide
class of sellers, installers and servicers of satellite equipment who
contract with the Company.  The suit alleges that the class has been
"subject to improper chargebacks."

Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company:

     (1) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class to
         professional installers in violation of contractual terms;

     (2) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny payments to
         class members; and

     (3) misrepresented to class members who own certain equipment
         related to the provision of satellite television service

The plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the court order
dismissing the case.


ENRON CORPORATION: Berger Montague Commences S.D. TX Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC filed a securities class action suit on behalf of
purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) securities during the period
from March 30, 2000 through and including October 18, 2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the Company and its principal
officers and directors.

The defendants allegedly violated Section 10(b) and 20 (a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of l934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges that defendants misled investors:

     (1) by reporting assets that were overvalued by more than $1
         billion, which caused write-downs in that amount and are
         expected to lead to further write-offs of hundreds of millions
         of dollars,

     (2) by concealing facts regarding relationships with a related
         entity that led to a more than $1 billion reduction of
         shareholders' equity and a $35 million charge, and

     (3) by obfuscating or failing to disclose the fact that agreements
         with other related entities satisfaction of which include
         obligations that may require the Company to issue large
         amounts of its shares.

This misconduct caused the market prices of Company stock to be
artificially inflated during the class period.

When facts about these matters were disclosed at the end of the class
period, the market price of the Company's per share stock fell from a
high of $90 per share during the class period to a low of $15 per
share.

Securities analysts downgraded their ratings of the Company's stock.  
Also, Moody's placed the Company's senior debt was placed on notice for
possible downgrade.

An SEC inquiry into the Company's transactions with related entities
was announced. The Company revealed that its Chief Financial Officer,
who is one of the Defendants, has taken a "leave of absence" from the
Company, and has been replaced.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick,
Arthur Stock, 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: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's
Website: www.bergermontague.com


ENRON CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Enron Corp. (NYSE:ENE) from 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:

     (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
         efforts 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 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

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

On October 16, 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing
that the Company 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, the Company revealed that a material portion of the
charge related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited
partnerships was controlled by their chief financial officer.

The Company also revealed that 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.

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

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. TX Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired Enron Corp. (NYSE: ENE) securities
between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and
the following officers and/or directors of the Company:

     (1) Kenneth L. Lay,

     (2) Jeffrey K. Skilling and

     (3) Andrew S. Fastow

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued
to the investing public false and misleading information that
materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects.

Moreover, the Company failed to disclose material information necessary
to make its prior statements not misleading.

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
         efforts 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 GAAP

On October 16, 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing
that the 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, the Company revealed that a material portion of the
charge related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited
partnerships was controlled by Enron's Chief Financial Officer.

The Company further revealed that 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.

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

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Enron Corp.
(NYSE: ENE) between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, inclusive.

The suit 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
         efforts 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 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

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

On October 16, 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, the Company revealed that a material portion of the
charge related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited
partnerships was controlled by Enron's Chief Financial Officer.

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


FORD MOTOR: Parties Near Settlement Agreement In Faulty Ignition Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company and lawyers for car owners may reveal a settlement
in the class action suit over faulty ignitions when they return to
Alameda County Superior Court this week.

Both sides are scheduled to appear before Judge Michael Ballachey, to
try to hammer out a deal before a new jury trial in the case starts in
February 2002.

The suit arose from the Thick Film Ignition (TFI) module that Ford
installed in over an estimated 22 million cars and trucks from 1983 to
1995.  The suit alleges that the TFI, which carries electricity to the
distributor that in turn carries it to the spark plugs, was placed too
close to the engine.  The module allegedly caused vehicles to stall in
dangerous situations, such as on highways and crossing railroad tracks.

The Company has denied that the module was defective, saying that there
was no evidence of safety problems.

Earlier, Ballachey ordered the Company to recall up to two million
trucks and cars with the TFI part - a move that shocked the auto
industry and that could cost $300 million.  The recall is on hold
pending the outcome of the settlement negotiations.

Neither party has revealed whether an agreement has been reached,
however they have come close to one in the past few months.

The Company reportedly made an offer in August but that agreement
failed to come through, causing Ballachey to set a February jury trial  
while the two sides were trying to reach a compromise.

According to a Reuters report, Company executives would rather enter a
deal than face Ballachey, who has been sharply critical of the Company,
saying that it produced "a blizzard of unpersuasive statistical
evidence" in its effort to show that the TFI was not defective or
unsafe.

The two parties have remained mum on the amount on any proposed deal
but lawyers for the car owners said any final agreement could cost as
much as $1 billion.  Reaching a settlement would allow the Company to
put one of the stormiest periods in its 98-year-old history, which saw
the Company deal with problems on faulty ignitions and tires.

In the past year, the Company recalled 19.5 million Firestone tires,
which have been linked to accidents causing about 200 deaths and 700
injuries.

It has also seen its U.S. market share wilt under pressure from foreign
automakers and has faced a number of quality problems from recalls to
low scores on industry quality surveys.


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Weiss Yourman Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman filed a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (NASDAQ:GENI) securities between
December 21, 1999 and September 25,2001.

The suit was filed against the Company and certain individuals
associated with the Company in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint also alleges that defendants
concocted a scheme to provide financial favors to financial analysts in
exchange for analysts issuing false positive reports to the public
regarding the Company.

These reports allegedly led the plaintiffs and other members of the
class to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.

For further details, contact Weiss and Yourman by Phone: (800) 427-7918
or visit the firm's Website: www.wyca.com


HAYES LEMMERZ: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo commenced a securities
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Hayes Lemmerz
International, Inc. (NYSE:HAZ) stock from June 8,2000 to September
5,2001.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan against the Company and two of its top officers.

The suit alleges the defendants:

     (1) improperly recognized revenue,

     (2) overstated earnings,

     (3) understated net losses, and

     (4) issued false and misleading financial results throughout
         fiscal 2000 and for the first quarter of fiscal 2001

News of the alleged violations came to light on September 5, 2001, when
the Company announced that it was postponing the release of its 2nd
Quarter 2001 earnings report and a related conference call.

Later that day, the Company issued a news release saying it would
restate its financial results for fiscal 2001 and the first quarter of
2001 "to correct certain accounting errors."

In the news release, John S. Rodewig, chairman of the board of
directors' audit committee, attributed the errors to "a failure within
certain parts of the Company to comply with sound and well-established
accounting policies."

The news release said the audit committee had undertaken an
investigation with assistance from a law firm and outside accountants,
and that the Company expected the investigation would result in
increased losses and decreased earnings during the class period.
Finally, the Company said that financial statements for the class
period "should not be relied upon."

The New York Stock Exchange quickly suspended trading of the Company's
shares. When trading resumed on September 6, 2001, the stock lost more
than half its value, falling to $1.80 a share from the $4.15 a share it
had fetched prior to the announcement.

For more information, contact Steven Morris 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


INTELLI-CHECK INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates New Jersey Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of short-sellers of the securities of Intelli-Check, Inc.,
(AMEX: IDN) between January 1, 2001 and the present.

The suit, filed lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for New Jersey, is pending against the Company and defendants:

     (1) Frank Mandlebaum, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Kevin Messina, Director,

     (3) Paul Cohen, Director,

     (4) Edward Winiarz, Director and Chief Financial Officer, and

     (5) W. Robert Holloway, Senior Executive Vice President

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

The defendants allegedly issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market during the class period concerning
its supposedly strong and growing sales thereby artificially inflating
the value of the Company's stock price.  In fact, sequential sales from
the 4th Quarter 2000 to 1st and 2nd Quarters 2001 have substantially
decreased.

Specifically, during the class period defendants reported materially
inflated revenue for the Company by:

     (i) manipulating the reporting of sales and revenue in its filings
         with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in its press
         releases; and

    (ii) failing to disclose significant competition having a material
         impact on the Company and the sale of its products

The Defendants announced significant increases in revenue for the
second consecutive quarter on May 9, 2001, when in fact shipments and
sales of products had actually decreased.

On August 13, 2001 the Defendants announced that revenues for the
second quarter of 2001 increased nearly 15 fold from the second quarter
of 2000 and 10 fold for the first six months compared with the year ago
period.

The defendants failed to disclose a possible change in the method of
accounting for distributor sales impact on revenue and deferred
revenues reported in its financial statements.

It is also alleged that the misleading disclosures have materially and
artificially inflated the price of the Company's shares thereby
allowing certain of the defendants to sell shares at substantial gains
and allowing the shares to close at or above $10.50 per share since
September 24, 2001.

At all times relevant defendants benefited, by virtue of substantial
ownership interests, through sales and otherwise, from the artificially
inflated stock price and rights offering, all to the detriment of the
class of short-sellers.

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
      

KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of KeySpan Corp.
(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 complaint charges the defendants with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial condition.   
Specifically, the suit 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.

The scheme:

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

     (2) enabled the Individual Defendants to sell their personally-
         held shares of 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 L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


MEMPHIS: Tennessee Supreme Court Lets Commercial Property Levy Stand
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently refused to hear Memphis property
owners' challenge of the Center City Commission's (CCC) special
property assessment, ending a three-year challenge of the agency's
primary funding source, The Commercial Appeal reported recently.

The Court's ruling denied the application for appeal in the the
class action lawsuits brought by developer Henry Turley, Union Planters
National Bank and other commercial property owners.

The suit contends that a special levy on commercial property in the
central business district was illegal and had not been properly
assessed.  They sought refunds of amounts paid since 1997.

Some members of the CCC's nonprofit boards had feared that the lawsuits
could cripple efforts to boost downtown redevelopment.  

"We're pleased by the state Supreme Court's decision," CCC president
Jeff Sanford said.  "It is consistent with two lower court decisions
and our own belief that the .assessment fee on downtown commercial
properties has been correctly established and fairly administered."


NETEASE.COM: Revenue Overstatement Draws S.D. NY Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NetEase.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTESE) will vigorously oppose the class
action suits filed against them in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
American Depositary Shares between July 3, 2000 and August 31, 2001.

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 thereunder.

The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Mr. William Lei Ding, founder and Chief Architect,

     (2) Mr. King F. Lai, former Chief Executive Officer and director,

     (3) Ms. Helen Haiwen He, former Chief Financial Officer and
         director,

     (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


In May 2001, the Company discovered that $1 million in contracts had
been improperly reported as revenue, which would delay announcing its
financial results for the first quarter of 2001.

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, the Company finally revealed the full extent of the
overstatement and 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 of NetEase.com
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 the
Company's quarterly 2000 and full year 2000 financial results which
were materially false and misleading because they overstated the
Company's financial performance.

The law firms handling the suits are Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and
Lerach LLP and Cauley Geller Bowman and Coates LLP.  For more
information, visit the firms' Websites: www.milberg.com or
www.classlawyer.com


ONYX SOFTWARE: Keller Rohrback Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Onyx Software Corp. (NASDAQ:ONXS) common stock between
January 10, 2001 and July 24, 2001, inclusive.

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

Shareholders allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
and omitted facts.

Specifically, it is asserted that the defendants knew, or recklessly
disregarded, that the Company's reported revenue and earnings were
attributable to the improper recognition of revenue in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC) rules.

In fact, the Company later admitted in its restatement of the fourth
quarter and year ended December 31, 2000 financial results that the
financial results cited throughout public filings and announcements
included the recognition of revenues from transactions involving
unauthorized side letters.

On July 24, 2001, the Company announced that it had discovered an
unauthorized side-letter "which related to an approximately $500,000
licensing transaction completed in the Fourth Quarter of 2000 [which]
potentially affects the revenue recognized in that transaction."

For more information, contact Jen Veitengruber, Lynn Sarko, Juli Farris
or Elizabeth Leland by Phone: (800) 776-6044 (toll-free) by E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.SeattleClassAction.com


RAILTRACK PLC: Investors Meet To Consider Suit Over Company's Closure
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Private investors in Railtrack PLC met in London recently to discuss
recovering their investments through a class action in the courts, the
Financial Times recently reported.   

The Company, who operates UK national rail infrastructure system, was
badly affected troubles started when two commuter trains collided in
1999, killing 31 passengers. Last year, a train derailed, killing four
people.

Consequently, Railtrack incurred huge losses.  The Company finally
closed after Transportation Secretary Stephen Byers refused to give the
company further state funding and placed it under administration.

The company's investors are now seeking ways to recoup their investment
losses.

Edwin Coe is acting for up to 1,000 private shareholders through the
Private Railtrack Shareholders Action Group.  Class Law is representing
3,500 private investors from the Railtrack Action Group.

David Greene, speaking for shareholders represented by Edwin Coe, said
the first step is to meet with Transport Secretary, Stephen Byers.  If
matters cannot be resolved through him, said Greene, the group will sue
the government.  

A six-member committee to head the action group was formed during the
discussion at the London meeting.  The committee includes Andrew
Ripley, an accountant who teaches people how to read companies'
financial statements and a former England rugby player.  

Ripley invested 70,000 pounds in Railtrack two days before it
collapsed.   Ripley said, "It is just amazing that the government can
break its agreement, break its word and be so deceitful."

Stephen Alexander of Class Law said the group had yet to decide whether
or not to take a similar course of action.


SHOPKO STORES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel lodged a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of ShopKo Stores, Inc. (NYSE:
SKO) between March 9, 2000 and November 9, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin against the Company and Chief Executive Officer
William J. Podany.

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

The 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 Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements concerning the integration of Pamida Holding Corp.,
the Company's financial results and the Company's prospects.

The complaint 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 distributions centers.

On November 9, 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 further revealed that it was experiencing problems at
Pamida's distribution centers and that those problems accounted for the
Company's reduced earnings.

For more information, 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


SPRINT CORPORATION: Sued By IN Customers Over Hidden Service Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen of Sprint Corporation's customers recently filed a lawsuit in
Marion Superior Court, Indiana, claiming the Company has been charging
unknowing customers with an optional service and failing to itemize the
charge on their bills, according to a recent Associated Press report.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of residents from Trafalgar, Nineveh and
Franklin in Johnson County, Indiana, alleges that the Company charged
customers a monthly fee of $4.45 to repair inside wire malfunctions and
used misleading billing statements by including the charge under "local
services," which confused customers about the optional nature of the
service.

"Sprint's efforts to enroll its customers and charge them, without
their consent, is deceptive and malicious, and shows a reckless
indifference for their rights," Peter Kovacs, an attorney for the
plaintiffs, said in a statement.  

The Company, whose business name in the state is United Telephone Co.
of Indiana, began offering the optional service in the mid-1980s.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status in order to represent the
Company's 250,000 residential and small business local service
customers in Indiana who have been wrongfully charged for the service.

"Even though $4.45 per month doesn't seem like a lot of money, it is to
the elderly on a fixed income," plaintiff Robert Young of Trafalgar
said in a news release.

Chris Harris, senior manager of Sprint corporate communications for
Indiana, said that the company was not aware of the lawsuit.  Company
officials plan to review the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
order that deregulated inside wire maintenance more than 10 years ago,
Harris said.

"We will confirm that we've followed the initial procedures that were
outlined at the time by the commission," she said.  "We need to review
this order, we need to review this complaint, and we're taking this
very seriously.  Beyond that, we will not comment on pending
litigation."

Sprint is Indiana's third largest local exchange company.  Its main
office is in Indianapolis.


TERADYNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Teradyne, Inc. (NYSE:TER)
between July 14, 2000 and October 17, 2000, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, is pending against the Company, George Chamillard and
Michael A. Bradley.

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 July 14, 2000 and October 17, 2000, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

The complaint alleges that Teradyne was experiencing declining orders
in its semiconductors testing systems division, which would cause its
growth rate to slow from historical levels.

Defendants concealed this adverse fact from investors, so that the
Company could complete 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 the Company's common stock dropped precipitously.

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


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Trial Proceeds As Judge Refuses WV Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur Recht refused to dismiss the class
action suit against the nation's tobacco giants, saying that the
plaintiffs had sufficient evidence to send the case to a jury.

Tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown and Williamson
and Lorillard filed motions to dismiss the suit last Wednesday, saying
the smokers failed to prove key points in their case.

Around 250,000 healthy West Virginia smokers filed the suit, seeking
the creation of an industry-funded medical monitoring program that
would provide free tests for healthy smokers.  The class in the suit
includes people who have smoked a pack a day for at least five years
but do not show signs of smoking-related diseases yet.

The suit alleges that the Companies did not exert effort to produce a
safer cigarette and accused them of "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.

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.

The jury will return on Thursday, when the defense is scheduled to
present its first witness.


TYSON FOODS: Oklahoma Residents Sue Due To Grand Lake Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma lakefront property owners filed a class action suit against
poultry company Tyson Foods, alleging that the Company dumped
wastewater containing chicken parts and blood into Grand Lake.

The suit was filed in Mayes County court where 15% of the lake is
located. The suit alleges that the Company discharges millions of
gallons of wastewater into Elk River, which flows from Missouri into
Oklahoma and into Grand Lake.

As a result, Grand Lake homeowners face foul odors, pieces of poultry,
waste, oil slicks, white foam and scum forming along the shoreline
instead of pristine and clear water.

The plaintiffs also allege that local landowners contracted by Tyson to
grow chickens deposit poultry waste directly on the land. This exposes
the waste to rainwater runoff that could transport the waste into Grand
Lake, said Charles Shipley, an attorney for the property owners.

The plaintiffs say that property values have been reduced by 5% to 10%
and the quality of life has deteriorated.

Wastewater discharge at Elk River now contain elevated levels of
ammonia, phosphorous, nitrates and algae, according to a water quality
report issued last year by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board.

Tyson spokesman Ed Nicholson declined comment on the issue, saying that
company officials haven't seen the lawsuit. He also said Tyson has not
been fined within the past two years.

Shipley said the plaintiffs could number into the thousands. R. Lynn
and Deborah Sue Thompson, the named plaintiffs representing the
property owners, declined comment.

"We don't want to tie a dollar figure to the suit," Shipley said. "Our
job is to show a jury the property values have been reduced between 5
and 10 percent."


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in N.D GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz initiated a securities class action on
behalf all persons who acquired WestPoint Stevens, Inc. (NYSE: WXS)
securities between February 10, 1999 and October 10, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against the Company and officers and/or
directors:

     (1) Holcombe T. Green, Jr.,

     (2) William F. Crumley,

     (3) Thomas J. Ward,

     (4) Morgan M. Schuessler,

     (5) Charles W. Mccall,

     (6) Dale G. Williams, and

     (7) Gerard B. Mitchell

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued
to the investing public false and misleading information that
materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects.

Moreover, the Company failed to disclose material information necessary
to make its prior statements not misleading.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company improperly
recognized revenue by prematurely shipping products to customers and
failed to disclose and timely account for excess inventory, thereby
misrepresenting the Company's condition and prospects.

The complaint alleges that defendants were motivated to artificially
inflate the price of the stock so that Green, the Company's Chairman,
could secure $250 million in loans to a company he controls using his
WestPoint shares as collateral.  Furthermore, defendants took advantage
of the inflated stock price to sell over 248,000 of their own shares
for proceeds of $6.24 million.

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


                               *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *