CAR_Public/011031.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, October 31, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 213


                             Headlines


AIRLINE LITIGATION: Companies Could Face Suits Due To Air-Travel DVT
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
BOSTON CELTICS: Sued By Unit-Holders Due To Delaware Reorganization
CALIFORNIA:Judge Rejects School District's Bid To Alter Consent Decree
CARESCIENCE INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA

CLARENT CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
CLARENT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CLARENT CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit
COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Settles LA Overtime Wage Suit For $20.2 Million
COOPER TIRE: Agrees To Settle 30 Radial Tire Suits For $24 Million

ENCOMPASS/BUILDING ONE: Janitors Sue Over Wage, Tax, Insurance Fraud
GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HAYES LEMMERZ: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI
INTEL CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
INTRENET INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH

KOREA THRUNET: Wolf Haldenstein Initiate Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LORAL SPACE: Wechsler Harwood Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Cauley Geller Commences N.D. CA Securities Suit

QLT INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
ROWECOM INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SAIPAN FACTORIES: Human Rights Suit Upheld by Court, Trial Pending
SIPEX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Massachusetts Securities Suit
SPARTANBURG COUNTY: Residents Consider Suit After Fire Dept Closure

SUNBEAM CORPORATION: $110M Settlement Hearing Set For November 27
SYKES ENTERPRISES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges M.D. FL Securities Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medical Expert Says No Scientific Basis For Tests
USINTERNETWORKING INC.: Wolf Haldenstein File Securities Suit in NY
WEBVAN GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York



                             *********


AIRLINE LITIGATION: Companies Could Face Suits Due To Air-Travel DVT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Airline companies could face class action suits after the British High
court issued writs against two companies over alleged cases of air
travel-related deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

Two test cases were launched against Virgin Airlines and British
Airways (BA) over the "economy class syndrome", which affects
passengers who are forced to sit in cramped conditions for long hours
without exercise.

These passengers allegedly are at risk of developing potentially lethal
blood clots.

Watford-based Collins Solicitors filed the suit on behalf of two
passengers, Lynn Walcott, whose husband Nigel died following a BA
flight from Barbados to London Gatwick and Peter Wilson, who developed
DVT following a Virgin flight from Hong Kong.

Collins Solicitors also acts for more than 150 alleged victims of the
so-called DVT syndrome.

According to senior partner Des Collins, they "will ask the court to
put in place a group litigation order so that all legal issues
surrounding air travel and DVT can be resolved."

Airlines could be liable for over $10 million for allegedly failing to
warn British travelers about the dangers of DVT.

Scientists however, are divided about whether there is a link between
flying and developing clots.

Spokespersons for both airlines, refused to comment on the suit,
uniformly saying that they have not yet seen the details of the case.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Apria Healthcare Group common stock between
March 22, 2001 and July 16, 2001.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company, as well as its Chief
Executive Office.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from defendants' false and
misleading statements regarding the extent of the Company's potential
liability from certain billing practices.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Company shares
traded at prices that were artificially inflated by defendants' failure
to disclose the potential costs of such liability.

After the Company admitted the degree of its potential liability on
July 16, 2001, its stock price fell 16% in one day to close at $24.08
per share.

For further 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


BOSTON CELTICS: Sued By Unit-Holders Due To Delaware Reorganization
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit-holders of the Boston Celtics Limited Partnership II have filed a
consolidated class action suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The suit arose from four separate class action filed in 1998 relating
to the reorganization of the partnership to form Boston Celtics Limited
Partnership

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Boston Celtics Limited Partnership II,

     (2) Celtics, Inc.,

     (3) Paul E. Gaston,

     (4) Don F. Gaston,

     (5) Paula B. Gaston,

     (6) John H.M. Leithead, and

     (7) John B. Marsh III

The named plaintiffs are:

     (i) Kenneth L. Rilander,

    (ii) Harbor Finance Partners,

   (iii) Maryann Kelly and

    (iv) Kathleen Kruse Perry.  

The suits uniformly alleged that that the reorganization was unfair to
former BCLP II Unit-holders, and seeks to recover an unspecified amount
of damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.  

The suits were later consolidated and in July 1998, the partnership
asked the court to dismiss the suit.

In August 1999, the court issued an opinion granting in part, and
denying in part, the partnership's motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in September
1999.

The Company cannot yet ascertain the result of the litigation but is
confident it will not have a material effect on their business
operations or financial position.


CALIFORNIA:Judge Rejects School District's Bid To Alter Consent Decree
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lew recently rejected the efforts of
the Los Angeles Unified School District to significantly change key
elements of a five-year-old consent decree aimed at improving special
education, the Los Angeles Daily News recently reported.

The decree was drafted as part of a settlement agreement in the
class action lawsuit alleging that the district failed to evaluate its
disabled students and ensure them federally mandated special education.

The suit was filed filed by the parents of Chanda Smith, a special-
education student. School officials said they wanted to modify the
Chanda Smith Consent Decree because its parent-run committees have
focused on administrative tasks rather than on delivery of services.  

They also said that implementing the decree now costs the district
about $1 billion annually.

Lew ruled that school officials are bound by the legal promise
they made to its 83,000 special-education students and their parents.

The district's arguments, said the judge, "are all complaints about the
structure of the consent decree - a structure to which defendants
agreed and of which they were aware."

Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union
hailed the decree, saying "This consent decree is on the verge of full
implementation. It was designed to reverse decades of neglect of our
special-education students."

Rosenbaum said that of the roughly 20 plans called for by the decree,
all but four have been implemented.  

Those four, he said, will focus on improving access to schools,
ensuring accountability, fostering programs for students with learning
disabilities and developing related services for special-needs students
growing up in the district.

The district's general counsel Hal Kwalwasser said the district is
"profoundly disappointed" by the ruling, saying that the district's
intention in proposing the change was not to abandon its resposibility
to reform special education or comply with the consent decree.

Rather, said Kwalwasser, modification of the decree was aimed at
establishing more specific performance benchmarks by which to measure
the schools' progress and monitor the district's progress.

Although the judge's ruling maintained the status quo, Judge Lew's oral
remarks indicated he had some sympathy for the district's concerns.

He said he felt "the consent decree that was entered into was probably
broader than the underlying complaint brought in 1993."

Plaintiffs said they would be willing to meet with school officials to
discuss future changes.  Parents, however, said they feel better
knowing the system they worked so hard to implement won't be unraveled.


CARESCIENCE INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Carescience, Inc. (Nasdaq: CARE) common stock
between June 29, 2000 and November 1, 2000, inclusive.

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

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and
misleading prospectus and registration statement.

The suit asserts that the prospectus was materially false and
misleading because, among other things, it misrepresented and omitted
to disclose material facts concerning two of the Company's products.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus highlighted
Careleader.com and Caresense.com, which were expected to significantly
contribute to the Company's future performance, and provided detailed
descriptions of their features, including an anticipated rollout date
in 2001.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that, given the environment
for Internet-based health applications, the Company's Careleader.com
and Caresense.com products, which were in development and not complete,
would no longer be economically feasible to continue developing.

Accordingly, the further development of those products would have to be
abandoned and the sales the Company expected from those products would
not be realized.

On November 1, 2000, the Company announced that it was revising its
revenue estimates for 2001, in part, because of its decision to
discontinue its Careleader.com and Caresense.com products.

In response to this announcement, the price of the Company's common
stock dropped to $1.6875 per share.

For further 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
      

CLARENT CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Clarent Corporation (Nasdaq: CLRN) publicly
traded securities during the period between April 20, 2001 and Aug. 31,
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.

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

In September 2001, Clarent announced in a press release that it had
discovered information suggesting that its previously reported revenues
for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2001 may have been
materially overstated.

It also revealed that the Company's Board of Directors was forming a
special committee to investigate a number of transactions that placed
in question the Company's historical financial results. The Company
added that its first quarter 2001 revenues, as released on April 19,
2001, and its second quarter 2001 revenues, as released on July 19,
2001, will be reduced and the related net losses will increase upon
conclusion of the review.

In addition, Clarent anticipates 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.

The Company also revealed that several of its officers have been placed
on administrative leave. On this news trading halted at $5.37.

For further 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


CLARENT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Clarent Corporation (NASDAQ: CLRN)
securities between April 20, 2001 and August 31, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and names the Company, officers Jerry
Shaw-Yau Chang and Simon Wong as defendants.

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 financial statements 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.
          
In September 2001, Clarent announced in a press release that it had
discovered information suggesting that its previously reported revenues
for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2001 may have been
materially overstated.

The Company also revealed that its Board of Directors was forming
a special committee to investigate a number of transactions that placed
in question the Company's historical financial results.

The Company also stated that its first quarter 2001 revenues, as
released on April 19, 2001, and its second quarter 2001 revenues, as
released on July 19, 2001, will be reduced and the related net losses
will increase upon conclusion of the review.

In addition, the Company anticipates 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.

The Company revealed, too, that several of its officers have been
placed on administrative leave. On this news trading halted at $5.37.

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


CLARENT CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP filed a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Clarent Corporation (NASDAQ:CLRN) publicly
traded securities during the period between April 20, 2001 and August
31, 2001, inclusive.

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 alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In September 2001, Clarent announced in a press release that it had
discovered information suggesting that its previously reported revenues
for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2001 may have been
materially overstated.

The Company also revealed that its Board of Directors was forming a
special committee to investigate a number of transactions that placed
in question the Company's historical financial results.

Clarent stated that its first quarter 2001 revenues, as released on
April 19, 2001, and its second quarter 2001 revenues, as released on
July 19, 2001, will be reduced and the related net losses will increase
upon conclusion of the review.

In addition, the Company anticipates 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.

The Company also announced that several of its officers had been placed
on administrative leave. On this news trading halted at $5.37.

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


COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Settles LA Overtime Wage Suit For $20.2 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, CA will settle for $20.2
million the class action suit filed by 1,100 current and former
employees regarding overtime pay.

The suit alleges that the Company attempted to avoid paying for
overtime work by improperly classifying them as exempt employees, when
they were performing duties typically assigned to hourly-wage employees
and therefore eligible for overtime compensation.

The suit further alleged that salaried account managers and
sales/merchandiser representatives typically worked 10 hour days and
performed hourly duties such as inventorying, pricing and setting up
displays of Coca-Cola products at grocery stores, gas stations and
convenience stores.

Hourly delivery drivers and merchandisers were supposed to undertake
these tasks, but these duties fell on the shoulders of the account
managers and sales representatives.

The lawsuit also charged that Coca-Cola failed to keep records of the
hours worked by employees, another violation of the California Labor
Code.

Under the settlement, qualifying employees who worked for Coca-Cola
from Nov. 22, 1995, to Aug. 7, 2001, will receive compensation based on
the number of years they were employed by the company.

These employees are entitled to receive overtime pay, punitive damages,
attorney fees and costs.

For further information, contact Brian S. Kabateck of Quisenberry &
Kabateck LLP by visiting the Website: www.gklaw.com


COOPER TIRE: Agrees To Settle 30 Radial Tire Suits For $24 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Automotive products maker Cooper Tire and Rubber Company has reached a
$24 million settlement agreement to settle 30 separate class action
suits in 28 separate state courts and in Puerto Rico.

The suits allege that the Company used certain materials and procedures
in its process of manufacturing steel-belted radial tires, rendering a
portion of the tires unsafe.

The suits further allege that Cooper Tire failed to disclose these
practices to purchasers of its tires.

The suits assert claims under the respective states consumer protection
and deceptive trade practices statutes, and comparable commercial law
and other theories.

Cooper Tire expects net cash outlays of approximately $5 million and
$19 million in 2001 and 2002, respectively.

The remaining amount is to be paid over the balance of a five-year
warranty enhancement program provided as part of the settlement.

The Company will not give cash awards to the plaintiffs under the
settlement, but instead will institute a five-year program offering:

     (1) a free replacement tire against separations for all steel-
         belted radial tires produced by the Company from 1985 through
         2001;

     (2) some modifications to final inspections; and

     (3) a consumer education program to promote tire safety

The Company is seeking preliminary approval in the Superior Court of
New Jersey for the three-part settlement package, which denies any
wrongdoing or legal liability by Cooper.

The Company also emphasized that there was never a claim of personal
injury or property damage involved and expects the agreement to be
finalized during the first quarter of 2002.


ENCOMPASS/BUILDING ONE: Janitors Sue Over Wage, Tax, Insurance Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
19 supermarket janitors filed a class action against cleaning
contractor Encompass/Building One Service Solutions and several major
markets alleging wage, tax and insurance fraud.

According to a Los Angeles Times report, government agents recently
obtained a search warrant to seize business records from the Company
after a lengthy investigation involving janitors at a number of
supermarkets and discount stores.

The company provides janitors to Albertson's, Vons, Kmart, Wal-Mart,
Target and other stores through a chain of subcontractors.  Two of its
Los Angeles subcontractors were convicted this year of felonies,
including "theft of labor," for severely underpaying their employees.

Investigators are seeking evidence that could connect the alleged
violations to Encompass, which signed the original contracts.

The search warrant sought business records, contracts and time and
payroll records that could be used to establish such a link.

"If the review of evidence supports a criminal prosecution, it will be
a big breakthrough," said Susan Gard, spokeswoman for California's
Department of Industrial Relations.

Encompass spokesman Russell Johnson said the company was very surprised
and quite disturbed by the state search.  

"We've always cooperated fully with [state investigators], so we were
quite surprised that they chose to take this action," Johnson said.  
"We have still not been notified that we are under any investigation.   
We have yet to be told the reason for this."

Johnson added, "We're confident the facts will show that we are and
always have been in full compliance with applicable federal, state and
local labor and employment laws."

Task force investigators were unavailable for comment.  Gard said only
that the search was undertaken because the "D.A's office had enough
information to obtain a search warrant."

The task force was formed a year ago after a Los Angeles Times article
reported alleged abuses of contracted supermarket janitors, most of
them recent immigrants from rural Mexico.

In interviews with The Times, more than a dozen janitors working for
Encompass subcontractors said they worked six or seven nights a week
with no overtime pay, often earning less than a minimum wage.  

They said they were not covered by workers' compensation insurance, and
no payroll taxes were paid for their hours.  Some worked for
subcontractors that were later convicted of felonies.

Building One is part of a national building-services corporation formed
during the last five years.   Houston-based Encompass is a provider of
facilities systems and services in the U.S."


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of GenesisIntermedia Inc. (NASDAQ: GENI)
publicly traded securities during the period between Dec. 21, 1999 and
Sept. 25, 2001.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company, CEO Ramy El-Batrawi,
certain of its officers and directors and financial commentator
Courtney Smith.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that in December 1999, the beginning of the class
period, defendants plotted and unleashed their scheme to inflate the
price of Company shares and gave shares worth more than $3 million to
Smith, a financial commentator who helped send the stock soaring after
he agreed to issue allegedly false, positive recommendations for it on
CNN, CNBC and Bloomberg Television.

However, the complaint alleges defendants concealed the payment of
216,000 shares to Smith, in order to induce the purchase of Company
shares and raise tens of millions of dollars via multiple private
securities offerings.

As a result of defendants' false statements, the Company's stock price
traded at inflated levels during the class period, increasing to as
high as $25 in June 2001.

Then after the close of the market on Sept. 25, 2001, Company shares
were halted pending the resolution of an investigation.  The Company's
shares remain halted and are in essence, worthless.

However, just hours before the announcement of the investigation and
"halt," defendant El-Batrawi sold over $1.7 million dollars worth of
his own shares.

For further 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
      

HAYES LEMMERZ: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC filed a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. (NYSE:HAZ)  
securities during the period of June 8, 2000 through and including
September 5, 2001.

The suit was filed last October 29, 2001 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
concerning its financial results for fiscal 2000 and the first quarter
of fiscal 2001.

Specifically, the reported net loss of $41.8 million for fiscal 2000
was understated by at least 31% and was actually $56.4 million for that
fiscal year period.

Net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2001, which was previously
reported as $7.6 million, was understated by a staggering 350% and was
actually $34.7 million for the quarter.

At the end of the class period, The Company announced that it would
restate its financial statements for 2000 and the first quarter of 2001
to increase reported losses by the foregoing amounts.

The Company stated that its investigation relating to these financial
misrepresentations would continue and that additional
restatements/adjustments may be necessary.

As a result of these restatements, the Company revealed that it was in
breach of certain financial covenants under its senior credit facility.

When this adverse information was disclosed, the stock was halted from
trading and opened the following day at $2.10 per share. This
represented a 50% decline from the prior day's trading price of $4.15
per share and more than a 90% decline from the $20 per share Hayes
stock had been trading at during the class period.

For more details, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Mary Ann Fink by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 by
Phone: 888-347-4600 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: afriedman@cmht.com or
mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com


INTEL CORPORATION: 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 Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) publicly
traded securities during the period between July 19, 2000 and Sept. 29,
2000.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California and charges the Company with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

However, the Company's statements were false regarding:

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

     (2) its improved manufacturing processes and efficiencies,

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

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

     (5) the outlook for its 3rd Quarter 2000 results, issued from July
         18-19,2000 through the Intel Developer Forum

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

The Company's stock dropped, falling to as low as $35-3/8 and in just
over five weeks, its stock dropped from its all-time high of $75-13/16
on 8/28, to its lowest price in years, $35-3/8, a market cap loss of
$271 billion, wiping out 50% of the Company's stock value.

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
      

INTRENET INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Intrenet, Inc.
(NASDAQ: INETE) between February 9, 1999 and October 13, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division against the Company and officers
John P. Chandler and Eric C. Jackson.

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, by issuing materially false and misleading statements to
the market.

In October 2000, the Company announced that it was investigating
certain accounting irregularities which could result in a restatement
of the Company's 1998 financial statements, 1999 financial statements
and its Form 10Qs, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
for the first and second quarters of 2000.

The Company acknowledged that it may have overstated its net income by
approximately $1.3 million and its earnings by approximately $0.09 per
share in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The Company also said that until the investigation is completed, its
previously reported financial results for the affected periods should
not be relied upon.

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


KOREA THRUNET: Wolf Haldenstein Initiate Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP commenced a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of Korea Thrunet Co, Ltd.
(NASDAQ:KOREA) securities between November 16, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and
its underwriters.

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

In November 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
10.1 million of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $18
per share.

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

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

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

For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gustavo
Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke 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 Korea
Thrunet.


LORAL SPACE: Wechsler Harwood Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian and Feffer LLP filed a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Loral Space & Communications Ltd.
(NYSE: LOR) common stock between November 4, 1999 and February 1, 2001,
inclusive.  The suit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

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

The complaint alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations
and omissions of material facts concerning the company's business
performance during the relevant time.

The complaint also alleges that these statements failed to disclose
that subsidiary Globalstar was experiencing regulatory problems and
delays in receiving necessary European approvals to achieve sales in
conformity with their stated business plans.  In fact, undisclosed
regulatory delays effectively prevented sales in Europe until April or
May of 2000.

Moreover, the statements failed to disclose that Globalstar's business
plans were predicated primarily on sales in developed nations and that
Globalstar phones did not offer "roaming" service, rendering them
uncompetitive in developed nations.

Furthermore, Loral's statements about the number of phone sales by
December 31, 1999 and December 31, 2000 were allegedly materially false
and had no basis. The Company was in a clear position to know that
Globalstar's projections were entirely without basis and that by
December 31, 1999, Globalstar would not sell phones or achieve
subscriptions remotely near those numbers.

For further details, contact the firm's Shareholder Relations by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 (toll-free), by E-mail: pguiteau@whhf.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.whhf.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 alleges 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,
inflicting over $100 million in damages upon plaintiff and the Class.

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


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of
Loudcloud, Inc. (NASDAQ:LDCL) issued pursuant to the March 8, 2001
prospectus.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its directors and its
underwriters with violations of the Securities 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,
inflicting over $100 million in damages upon plaintiff and the Class

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


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Cauley Geller Commences N.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a class action on behalf of
purchasers of Providian Financial Corporation (NASDAQ:PVN) publicly
traded securities during the period between June 6, 2001 and October
18, 2001, inclusive.

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 for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the 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 thus changed when it recognizes losses and
deferred the recognition of approximately $30 million of charge-offs
from June into July.

Providian allegedly manipulated its financial statements for 2nd
Quarter 2001 and shaved 40 basis points off its managed net charge-off
rate of 10.3% and boosted reported EPS by $0.06. Without this change,
the loss rate would have been 10.7%.

This is well above defendants' guidance of 9.5%-10%. Defendants made no
mention of this change on the conference call or in the Company's 10-Q
filing 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, company
insiders 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 information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson 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


QLT INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of QLT, Inc.
(NASDAQ: QLTI) between August 1, 2000 and December 14, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company and officers Julia Levy and
Kenneth Galbraith.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing materially false and misleading statements to
the market.

Specifically, throughout the class period, QLT repeatedly issued
statements indicating continued strong demand for its top-selling drug,
Visudyne.

On December 14, 2000, however, the defendants shocked the market by
announcing that their sales expectations for Visudyne would not be met
because demand slowed after retinal physicians began experiencing
difficulties in securing reimbursement for the drug from insurance
carriers and governmental agencies, both in the United States and in
Europe.

In response to this announcement, the Company's common stock fell
approximately 31% from its closing price on the previous day.

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


ROWECOM INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian and Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of RoweCom, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROWE)
securities between March 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

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

The prospectus was issued in connection with Rowecom's initial public
offering of 3.1 million shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that
was completed on or about March 9, 1999.

The complaint alleges 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 Company  
         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 Company shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices

For more information, contact Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP by
Mail: 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
877-935-7400 (Toll Free) or visit the firm's Website: www.whhf.com


SAIPAN FACTORIES: Human Rights Suit Upheld by Court, Trial Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Mariana Islands Federal Court refused to dismiss a human
rights class action against Saipan factory owners and U.S. retailers,
allowing it to proceed to trial.

The suit alleges that more than 13,000 garment workers in Saipan often
work 12-hour days, seven days a week, in unsafe, unclean conditions
that violate U.S. labor laws and international treaties.

U.S. District Judge Alex R. Munson held that these claims were enough
to establish liability of the factories and retailers for engaging in a
"conspiracy" to use indentured labor in violation of racketeering laws.

The suit further alleges that the Saipan garment industry employs
foreign workers, primarily young women from China, and requires them to
sign "shadow contracts" waiving their basic human rights.

These workers were also allegedly forced to pay "recruitment fees" as
high as $7,000 just to come to the U.S., creating an indentured status
that has been illegal in the United States since the civil war.

The retailers claimed in their motion to dismiss the suit that they
were not legally responsible for the actions of factory owners, since
they were just "customers."

The federal court upheld the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) claims but disallowed certain other claims such as
for violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act.

However, the dismissal of those claims was "without prejudice" to
plaintiffs' amending the complaint to include more detail or
allegations of "state action" involving the People's Republic of China.

Since the case started in 1999, nineteen retailers settled the claims
against them and agreed to a system of independent monitoring at the
Saipan factories of contractors that produce their clothes.

The settlement provides for a multi-million dollar fund and requires
retailers to ensure that their Saipan factories comply with strict
employment standards. These include guaranteeing overtime pay for
overtime work, providing safe food and drinking water, and respecting
employees' basic human rights.

Unfortunately, the factory owners, together with The Gap, Target, JC
Penney, Levi Strauss, and others have blocked the other retailers'
settlements by using delay tactics in the courts.

The defendants include many major U.S. retailers and dozens of largely
foreign factory owners, including Hong Kong businessman, Willie Tan,
head of Tan Holdings.

The plaintiffs are represented by the San Diego firm of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP and the San Francisco firm of Altshuler
Berzon Nussbaum Rubin & Demain.


SIPEX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Massachusetts Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Sipex, Corporation (NASDAQ: SIPX)
securities between July 20, 2000 and January 11, 2001 inclusive.

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

     (1) James E. Donegan, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
         Board of Directors,

     (2) Frank R. Dipietro, Chief Financial Officer and Vice
         President,

     (3) Stephen E. Parks, President and Chief Operations Officer
         during the class period), and

     (4) Manuel M. Del Arroz, Senior Vice President, Business
         Development

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 20, 2000 and January 11, 2001.

Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, Sipex improperly recognized
revenues during its second and third quarters of 2000 in order to meet
revenue and earnings expectations during the class period, on products
which were shipped to distributors months ahead of schedule and
product-orders which had been canceled by distributors.

In January 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing that its
revenues for the fourth quarter of 2000 would be much worse than prior
guidance, due to order cancellations and returns of products it already
shipped and an inability to meet supposedly high-demand for products
that it was unable to deliver to customers because of production
problems.

In response to this announcement, the Company's stock price dropped by
46.3% in one day, from $24.2344 per share on January 11, 2001, to $13
per share by the close of trading on January 12, 2001.

Prior to the disclosure of the true facts about the Company's business,
Company insiders sold a total of over $35 million of their personally-
held stock

For further 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
      

SPARTANBURG COUNTY: Residents Consider Suit After Fire Dept Closure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Arcadia residents may file a class action suit against Spartanburg
County due to its decision to shut down their fire department.

Residents allege that the county didn't ask for their input before
deciding to redraw fire district lines and put Arcadia in the Una
district.

In a community meeting last Sunday, they further expressed concern that
they would have to pay more for fire insurance because the Una
firehouse is farther away.
   
County officials have asserted that the decision was partially based on
Arcadia's financial problems brought about by the closure of Mayfair
Mills.

Arcadia fire chief Ted Beaty says they have been asking for funding
from the advisory board for two years, but were refused.

Councilman Jeff Horton released a statement on the issue, saying the
decision ".made the best sense for the future. This is probably the
first of more fire service consolidations to come."

He said Arcadia lost half of its tax base when Mayfair Mills closed.

He further asserted that without the consolidation, property owners
would have to double or triple tax payments to compensate for the lost
tax revenue.

Some residents say they will look for a lawyer and ask about the filing
of a class action lawsuit.


SUNBEAM CORPORATION: $110M Settlement Hearing Set For November 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP announced that a fairness
hearing for the $110 million settlement with Arthur Anderson LLP in the
securities class action against Sunbeam Corporation is set for November
27, 2001.

The suit was filed in 1998 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
the Company during the period of Oct. 22, 1997 through April 3, 1998.

The complaint charges the Company, certain of its directors and
officers, and its auditors Arthur Andersen LLP, with federal securities
law violations for concealing material adverse non-public information
from the public by failing to disclose that:

     (1) positive fourth quarter 1997 sales and earnings were the
         product of an inventory buildup at the Company's retailers
         during the fourth quarter of 1997 resulting from its "early
         buy" and "bill and hold" programs which induced its retailers
         to purchase goods in the fourth quarter of 1997 for sale in
         the first quarter of 1998, and

     (2) that the fourth quarter 1997 inventory buildup would adversely
         affect first quarter 1998 sales and earnings

When Sunbeam disclosed a loss for the first quarter of 1998 on greatly
reduced sales, the price of Sunbeam stock fell from $45-9/16 per share
at the close of trading on April 2, 1998 to $34-3/8 at the close of
trading on April 3, 1998, the end of the class period.

Other cases were filed on behalf of investors and these cases were
later consolidated and an amended class action was filed with the class
period was broadened to begin April 23, 1997, and end June 30, 1998.

The court later denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
The case against Sunbeam has been stayed pending bankruptcy proceedings
while the case is proceeding against the individual defendants and
Arthur Anderson.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
has preliminarily approved the Arthur Andersen settlement.


SYKES ENTERPRISES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges M.D. FL Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a securities class
action against Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated (Nasdaq: SYKE) and two
of the Company's senior officers.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all those who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period between July 26, 1999 and February 4,
2000, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Sykes violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by improperly recording revenues
from certain of the Company's software contracts in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

As a result, defendants caused the Company to report materially false
and misleading financial statements for the second and third quarters
of fiscal 1999. As a result of these false and misleading statements,
the market price of Sykes's common stock was artificially inflated
during the class period.

On January 31, 2000, the Company stunned the market when it announced
that it would be delaying the release of its fourth quarter 1999
earnings due to accounting issues.

Thereafter on February 7, 2000, the Company revealed the full extent of
its fraud when it announced that it had restated its financial results
for the second and third quarters of 1999 due to improper revenue
recognition practices.

As a result of these disclosures concerning the Company's accounting
improprieties, the price of the Company's common stock fell over 70%.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 1-888-4-POMLAW (1-
888-476-6529) (toll-free) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com

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


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medical Expert Says No Scientific Basis For Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The tobacco companies in the landmark West Virginia smokers' class
action presented last Monday a medical expert who said there was no
scientific basis for the medical program sought for in the suit.

George Washington University professor and lung specialist Dr. Samuel
Spagnolo said he was "bewildered" when told that smokers want the four
tobacco giants to provide for the medical monitoring program. He says
"There was just no scientific basis for a program of this sort."

Spagnolo is the first of a set of witnesses the defendants - R.J.
Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown and Williamson and Lorillard - are
presenting to refute the benefits of the monitoring program.

Some 250,000 West Virginia smokers filed the suit which covers people
who have smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for at least five years
but have not yet developed symptoms of smoking-related diseases.

The suit primarily alleges that the companies acted with "willful and
wanton" disregard for public health when evidence emerged that
cigarettes can cause disease.

The smokers are asking the companies pay for tests that they claim
would detect disease early and help save lives.

The proposed medical program includes:

     (1) Lung-function tests called spirometry for all symptom-free
         class members at age 40, wih a second test at age 45 and tests
         every two years after that; and

     (2) Spiral computed tomography scans, which generate three-
         dimensional images of organs and allows cross-secion views
         into the lungs, starting at age 50

The companies assert that the tests were "experimental and unproven"
and that neither has been proven to make a difference in the eventual
outcome of disease.

Spagnolo testified that smoking related disease such as emphysema or
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be accurately diagnosed
until the patients show symptoms. Spagnolo also reinforced the tobacco
companies contention that the best way to prevent smoking-related
diseases is to stop smoking.

He says, "The only way you can stop the progression of the disease is
to stop smoking.If you continue to smoke, you can give all the drugs
you want in the world and you will not stop the progression of the
disease."

Spagnolo also said spirometry cannot alone diagnose emphysema or
chronic obstructive lung disease and must be paired with a patient's
history, symptoms and other test results.

The lawsuit is essentially a defective product case, with medical
monitoring as the proposed remedy for wronged consumers and is the
first case of its kind to be tried in the United States.


USINTERNETWORKING INC.: Wolf Haldenstein File Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of USinternetworking, Inc.
(NASDAQ: USIX) securities between April 8, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and
its underwriters.

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

Last April 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 6
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $21 per
share.

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

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

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

For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquity, Thomas Burt, Gustavo
Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke 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 USinternetworking.


WEBVAN GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Webvan Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: WBVN) securities
between November 4, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (1) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation,

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

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (5) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and

     (6) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

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

The prospectus was issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering of 25,000,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per
share that was completed on November 4, 1999.

The complaint alleges 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 Company
         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 Company shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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

      
                              *********

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  * * *