CAR_Public/011101.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, November 1, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 214


                          Headlines


APPLE COMPUTER: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit
CANADA: Supreme Court Hears Welfare Discrimination Suit Against Quebec
CRITICAL PATH: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ENRON CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
FORD MOTOR: Sued By Customer For Excess Vehicle Radiator Charges

HAWAII: State Faces Special Education Improvement Deadline
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LEXENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates NY Securities Suit
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit

LOUDCLOUD INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences N.D. CA Securities Suit
LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D.NY
MARCONI PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. PA
MASSACHUSETTS: Advocates Sue For Adequate Mental Health Care For Kids
PSS WORLD: Marc Henzel Sues For Securities Act Violations in M.D. FL

QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
SULZER MEDICA: Appellate Court To Review Implant Suits' Settlement
TALARIAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway File Suit in S.D. NY

TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
UNITED STATES: Ag Dept Minority Employees Sue For Discrimination
VENTRO CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D.CA
VICINITY CORPORATION: "False, Misleading" Prospectus Fosters Suit
WEBMD CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY


                            *********



APPLE COMPUTER: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of
all purchasers of Apple Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) common stock from
July 19, 2000 through September 28, 2000, 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. The suit charges the defendants with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in July 2000, the Company
introduced its new Power Mac G4 Dual Processor, G4 Cube and iMac
personal computers, representing that they were exceptionally powerful,
fast and featuring exceptionally attractive revolutionary features.

At the time, the Company represented that the development of these new
products was completed, they were ready for mass production and would
be available in quantity very shortly.

The Company claimed this would result in its achieving strong revenue
and earnings per share (EPS) growth in the 4th Quarter 2000 and 2001.

As a result, the Company's stock climbed to a class period high of $64-
1/8 in early September 2000, when four top officers sold 370,000 shares
of their stock for $22 million.

Suddenly, 20-25 trading days later, the Company shocked investors by
revealing a huge 4th Quarter 2000 revenue and EPS shortfall due to very
poor sales to its education (K-12) market and poor consumer acceptance
of its new personal computer products.

These products were late to market, had defects and lacked features
which were essential for market success, resulting in the accumulation
of excessive inventories of finished goods in the Company's
distribution channel and its having to cancel component part orders
and, thereby, incur financial penalties.

As rumors of the Company's troubles circulated prior to and then
following its shocking disclosure, Company stock collapsed from $61-
3/64 to $25-3/8, continuing to fall to as low as $17 and then to $13-
5/8, as investors absorbed the full impact of these shocking
revelations, a stock decline that wiped out over $10 billion of Apple's
market capitalization in just a few days.

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 or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


CANADA: Supreme Court Hears Welfare Discrimination Suit Against Quebec
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada heard the suit filed by a 42-year-old
Montreal resident challenging Quebec's welfare rules. Louise Gosselin filed
the suit on behalf of thousands of Quebecers who received welfare payments
12 or more years ago.

>From 1985 to 1989, Quebec slashed welfare payments to recipients aged
under 30 who refused to join job-training programs from $448 to $163 a
month.  Quebec discontinued the age-based rule after 1989.

The suit contends that the policy discriminated against some young
people because it didn't allow them to lead a decent life.

The $163-a-month check was allegedly so inadequate that young people
were forced into crime, prostitution and homelessness.

Gosselin says she survived in the late 1980s by sleeping in shelters or
on the street and by eating in soup kitchens.  She presently remains on
welfare.

Carmen Palardy, counsel for Gosselin, asserted that the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms obliges the government to ensure all citizens have
a minimum income.

She argues, "It's recognized in Canada that welfare systems are
essential and that it's a fundamental right to ensure a decent level of
living for all the people across the country who find themselves
deprived of the means of subsistence."

Gwen Brodsky, of the National Association of Women and the Law backed
the suit, saying that young people were driven to "degrading means of
survival" that threatened their psychological and physical security.

Lawyers for the Quebec government contended that there was nothing
legally wrong with the welfare rules, saying the government was not
obligated to provide a guaranteed minimum revenue.

Andre Fauteux, a government attorney, said that they focused on those
aged under-30 not because of discrimination but because their lack of
training and work experience made it hard for them to find work.

He debunked the suit's contentions that Quebec's program wasn't adapted
to all those on welfare and that there weren't enough job-training
openings provided to meet the demand.

"Social aid is to help with the necessities of life. It's not a program
of guaranteed-minimum revenue for people who are capable of work,"
added Isabelle Harnois, a Quebec government lawyer.


CRITICAL PATH: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo LLP initiated a
securities class action against Critical Path, Inc. (NASDAQ: CPTH) and
certain of its top officers for violations of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all investors who bought the
Company's common stock between October 20, 2000 and February 1, 2001.

The action charges that the Company and some of its top officers misled
investors about the company's revenues and earnings and that the
company did not prepare its financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.

On February 2, 2001, the company announced it had discovered "a number
of transactions that put into question the company's financial
results."

In addition, the company stated that its 2000 4th quarter results may
be "materially misleading" an two senior officers were placed "on
leave."

As a result of the announcement, Company shares fell 67% from its
closing price of $10.06 on February 1, 2001 to $3.86 on February 2,
2001 before trading in the stock was halted on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE)
preferred stock between on or about June 1, 1999, and October 26, 2001,
inclusive.

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

     (1) Kenneth L. Lay, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Jeffrey K. Skilling, former President, CEO and Chief Operating
         Officer, and

     (3) Andrew S. Fastow, former Chief Financial Officer and Executive
         Vice President

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

The defendants allegedly issued materially false and misleading
statements during the class period that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's Preferred Securities.

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

     (i) in June 1999, the Company began entering into a series of
         extraordinarily leveraged investment and hedging transactions
         with a group of limited partnerships which were controlled by
         the then-Chief Financial Officer Andrew S. Fastow. The Company
         did not publicly disclose the details of these transactions,
         the material change in its investment and hedging strategy as
         represented by these transactions, the material increase in
         the degree of leverage and the business and investment risk
         with respect to these transactions, and generally, or that
         these transactions could lead to billions of dollars in
         borrowings and writedowns of shareholders' equity, which would
         jeopardize the value of the Company's Preferred Securities;

    (ii) the Company failed to write-down impaired assets on a timely
         basis in accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles; and

   (iii) the Company's operating results were materially overstated as
         a result of the Company's failing to timely write-down the
         value of its investments with certain limited partnerships,
         including those described above.

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

The Company failed to clearly disclose until October 18 that it also
was taking a $1.2 billion writedown in shareholders' equity as a result
of unwinding the investments with the limited partnerships controlled
by Mr. Fastow.

Since the announcement of the $1.2 billion writedown in shareholders'
equity, the market price of the Company's Preferred Securities has
dropped significantly.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of only the Preferred Shareholders of
Enron, which include among others the following classes of stock:

     (a) Enron Capital LLC, 8.00%, 11/30/43 series, 8 million shares
         outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange;

     (b) Enron Capital Trust I, 8.3% Series, 8 million shares
         outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange;

     (c) Enron Capital Trust II, 8.1250% series (preferred R), 6
         million shares outstanding, traded on the New York Stock
         Exchange;

     (d) Enron Capital Trust III, 200,000 shares outstanding;

     (e) Enron Capital Resources LP, 9.0%, 8/31/24 Series A, 3 million
         shares outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange;

     (f) Portland General Electric, 7.75%, 6/15/07 series, 300,000
         shares outstanding, traded on the NASDAQ;

     (g) Portland General Electric, 8.25%, 12/31/35 Series A, 3 million
         shares outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange;

Purchasers of Convertible Preferred Stock are not included in the
Class.

For further details, contact George Peters, Derek Behnke, Robert B.
Weintraub, Jeffrey G. Smith or Daniel W. Krasner 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. Your
e-mail should refer to Enron Preferred Securities.


FORD MOTOR: Sued By Customer For Excess Vehicle Radiator Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Corporation faces two class action suits filed in Texas and
Illinois for charging customers for upgraded heavy-duty radiators that
they did not receive.

The first suit was filed by The Edwards Law Firm LLP in the 28th
Judicial District Court, Nueces County, Texas while the second was
filed by Chicago law firm of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament &
Rubenstein, PC in Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison,
Illinois.

The Company allegedly charged approximately 80,000 of its customers in
Texas and 450,000 nationwide for the radiators.

The Texas case was filed on behalf of consumers who purchased new 2000-
and 2001-model Ford F-150 pick-ups with the "Class III Towing Group" or
the "Heavy-Duty Electrical/Cooling Group" option packages.

The consumers paid $350 to $400 each for the Class III Towing Group
option package and $210 for the Heavy-Duty Electrical/Cooling Group
option package. Both options were to include an upgraded heavy-duty
radiator.

The Company did not install the upgraded heavy-duty radiators on the
vehicles.

The 2000 Ford F-150 went on the market in September 1999, followed by
the introduction of the 2001 F-150 a year later, in September 2000.

The Illinois suit makes substantially similar allegations.

In deposition testimony, the Company claimed that it first became aware
on September 29, 2000, more than a year after the 2000 model was
introduced, that the trucks were not properly equipped.

Last week, the Company publicly admitted its wrongdoings and will offer
its affected customers a choice between $100 cash, a $500 coupon good
toward the purchase of another Ford, or radiator replacement, according
to Reuters.

Attorneys in the lawsuits say that Ford's response is inadequate.

"Ford's deception continues," said William R. Edwards III, co-lead
counsel in the Texas suit in a press release, "First, Ford charged its
customers for something that they did not receive. And when Ford
learned of the problem, it continued to sell the trucks without the
upgraded heavy-duty radiators."

He further said "Now, six months after we filed the class-action
lawsuit, Ford makes an offer that is inadequate. We are pleased that
Ford finally is prepared to admit their mistake publicly, albeit after
450,000 customers have been denied what they purchased."

He added the Company should take complete responsibility and at least
offer free rental cars while the repairs are made.

About 44 percent of the 500,000 F-150s that the Company sells
nationwide every year have one of the two option packages that should
include the upgraded heavy-duty radiator.

The suit alleges that the Company had a contractual obligation to
ensure that the upgraded heavy-duty radiators were installed on every
vehicle that included the options package.

Steven Kanner, counsel in the Illinois suit says, "Ford had the
opportunity to respond appropriately to the problem on September 29,
2000, but chose not to,"

Instead, the Company allegedly kept everyone in the dark about the
problem, including their dealers, and continued to sell the trucks
without the upgraded heavy-duty radiators.

Six months after a lawsuit was filed and it became clear that the
problem was about to come to light, the Company offers to replace the
radiators.

Edwards said that about 450,000 F-150 owners nationwide will soon
receive repair notices from the Company offering to replace the
standard radiator with the upgraded heavy-duty radiator.

According to Edwards, this response is inadequate because the Company
is offering no rental car reimbursement to F-150 owners or any other
compensation for the one to two days that they will be without their
own vehicles while the radiators are being replaced.

For more information, visit the Website: www.F150Radiator.com or call
(800) 305-9768 toll-free to get the same information.


HAWAII: State Faces Special Education Improvement Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The state of Hawaii has until November 1 to show that it is complying
with the Felix consent decree that requires the state to improve its
special-education services, the Associated Press recently reported.

Specifically, by November 1, the Department of Education must
show that 27 of its 41 school complexes are providing services to
special needs children as required by law.

So far, 26 schools are in full or provisional compliance, and test
results are awaited on the adequacy of one more school.

Under the 1994 Felix consent decree, which evolved out of a class
action lawsuit charging the state with ignoring the needs of mentally
disabled children, Hawaii agreed to improve special-education services
as required by federal law.

The state has missed a string of deadlines since then, however.
Judge Ezra offered the state one last chance by setting the November 1
deadline to meet certain benchmarks.

He also warned that the federal court would take over Hawaii's special-
education program if the deadline was not met.

Eric Seitz, one of the plaintiff attorneys in the Felix case, said
that, while there are still serious problems, there is hope the state
can get the job done on its own without a receiver.

He said he doubts the court will take drastic action because the state
will be able to show that it is close to compliance.  Judge Ezra is not
scheduled to hear the issue in court until later in November.

Fellow plaintiff attorney Shelby Floyd feels less confident than Seitz
because she sees ongoing problems recruiting teachers and launching an
information management system.

Both attorneys are concerned about a legislative investigation of the
state's compliance with the decree, saying it will distract the efforts
of the Department of Education.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired Keynote Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: KEYN)
securities between September 24, 1999 and August 15, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and names the Company and executive
offices Umang Gupta and John Flavio as defendants.

The complaint also names FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. as a
defendant, one of the lead underwriters of Keynote's initial public
offering and secondary offering of common stock.

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

The prospectus were issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering of 4,000,000 shares of common stock at $14.00 per share
that was commenced on or about September 24, 1999 and a secondary
offering of 5,750,000 shares of common stock at $105 per share that was
commenced on or about February 7, 2000.

The complaint alleges that the prospectuses were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose:

     (i) the underwriter's agreement with certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted shares in the
         offerings in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed
         commissions; and

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

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


LEXENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of Lexent, Inc. (NASDAQ: LXNT)
securities between July 27, 2000 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.

In July 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 6
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per
share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which 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 H. 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
Lexent.


LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Liberate Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LBRT) securities between July 28, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive, inclusive.

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

     (1) Mitchell E. Kertzman, President, Chief Executive Officer and
         director,

     (2) Nancy J. Hilker, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (4) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (5) Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated

The complaint alleges that defendants violated 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in July 1999, the Company
commenced an initial public offering of 6,250,000 of shares of common
stock at an offering price of $16 per share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquity, Gregory M. Nespole,
Michael Miske or George Peters 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 Liberate Technologies.


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Loudcloud, Inc. (NASDAQ: LDCL) securities
between March 8, 2001 and May 1, 2001.

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

     (1) Marc L. Andreessen,

     (2) Benjamin A. Horowitz,

     (3) Roderick M. Sherwood III,

     (4) William V. Campbell,

     (5) Michael S. Ovitz,

     (6) Andrew S. Rechleff,

     (7) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (8) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (9) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

    (10) Epoch Securities, Inc.,

    (11) Allen & Company Incorporated,

    (12) CIBC World Markets Corp.,

    (13) Dain Rauscher Incorporated,

    (14) Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,

    (15) Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

    (16) Wit SoundView Corporation

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 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 $6.00 per
share, commenced in March 2001.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose:

     (i) Loudcloud's plans to substantially reduce its workforce and to
         restructure itself shortly after the public offering;

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

   (iii) the imminent cancellation of a major contract to which one of
         the underwriters was a party; and

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

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


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences N.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Loudcloud, Inc.
(Nasdaq: LDCL) issued pursuant to the March 8, 2001 Prospectus.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus used by
defendants to sell $150 million worth of 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 Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D.NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Loudeye Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOUD)
securities between March 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (1) Martin G. Tobias,

     (2) Larry Culver,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Chase Securities, Inc., and

     (5) CIBC World Markets Corp.

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 4,500,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share
that was completed in March 1999.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose:

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

    (ii) the agreement between the underwriters and certain of its
         customers whereby the underwriters would allocate shares in
         the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase 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


MARCONI PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. PA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Marconi PLC
(Nasdaq: MONI) between April 11, 2001 and July 4, 2001, inclusive.

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

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 April 11, 2001 and July 4, 2001, concerning the
demand for its products.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued several
press releases in which they assured investors:

     (1) that the Company would experience an increase in its revenues
         in the current year; and

     (2) that, despite earnings warnings from most of its competitors,
         the Company saw no need to change its guidance.

In July 2001, however, defendants finally disclosed that they were, in
fact, experiencing a slowdown in customer spending and, as a result,
the Company expects sales to fall more than 15% and operating profit to
fall 50% for the year ending March 2002.

The market's reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive.
When shares reopened for trading on July 5, 2001, after having been
suspended pending this announcement, the price per share of the
Company's American Depositary Receipts dropped by over 50% to close at
$3.35 per share, significantly below the class period high of $12.50
per share.

For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole,
Gustavo Bruckner, George Peters 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. E-
mail should refer to Marconi.


MASSACHUSETTS: Advocates Sue For Adequate Mental Health Care For Kids
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates for mentally ill children are suing the State of
Massachusetts for allegedly forcing hundreds of children into
unnecessary and lengthy hospital stays.

The suit will be filed in Springfield federal court after negotiations
to expand home-based treatments collapsed.

The suit accuses the state of violating federal laws by failing to
provide extensive counseling and support in the children's homes as
some other states do.

The suit was filed on behalf of at least 1,000 children in the Medicaid
program for the poor and the disabled.

The suit also names nine children, from Brockton to the Berkshires, who
have been moved from facility to facility without getting the help they
need.

Steven J. Schwartz, an attorney with the Center for Public
Representation, told of a 13-year old girl prone to self-abuse.

Her parents begged for professional help so they could keep her in
their Berkshire County home but instead the girl was moved in and out
of psychiatric wards and residential programs over a seven-year period.

Schwartz says, in an interview with the Boston Globe, "The fundamental
problem is that the kids don't need to leave their homes, their
communities, their families, but they're being ripped out of their
homes because there's no comprehensive treatment except at institutions
or group facilities."

He further said that they were not able to come up with an agreement
with the state in nine months of talks aimed at averting the lawsuit.

However, Wendy Warring, the state's Medicaid commissioner, says the
advocates were too impatient and the state was working to develop
better mental care services.

Warring said she has asked the company that manages Medicaid mental
health care for Massachusetts to develop a more comprehensive home-care
program, but that it will take time.

Some improvements can be made even with budget restrictions, she said.
The Medicaid program this year spent about $110 million on mental
health care for about 50,000 children.

Schwartz, however, said that the urgency of the children's needs is the
driving force behind the lawsuit and not the state's economic downturn,
which has led to talk of budget cuts.

A hundred children remain "stuck" inappropriately in hospitals or
residential facilities, according to the advocacy groups.

As many as 10 states provide extensive home-based mental health
services for children, which includes individualized treatment programs
of therapy, help in modifying troubling behavior, after-school
programs, and support for the family.


PSS WORLD: Marc Henzel Sues For Securities Act Violations in M.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of PSS World Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSSI)
securities between October 26, 1999 and September 1, 2000, inclusive.

The action was filed in the United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida against the Company, David A. Smith and Patrick C.
Kelly.

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 a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between October 26, 1999 and September 1, 2000, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued multiple press releases
and filed quarterly reports and an annual report with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. The reports materially overstated the
Company's net income in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles.

Last June 2000, defendants issued a press release announcing its year
end results and the fact that it had entered into a definitive stock-
for-stock merger agreement with Fisher Scientific International, Inc.

The market reacted favorably to this announcement because of the value
of the exchange ratio of Fisher's shares.

One of the key terms of the merger, which was belatedly disclosed by
the Company, was that the Company had to report EBITDA of not less than
$23 million for the quarter in order for the merger to be consummated.

In an August 8, 2000 press release, defendants announced that they were
in compliance with this provision of the merger agreement and that the
merger was expected to proceed.

On September 1, 2000, the Company issued a press release reporting that
the merger agreement had been terminated. In response to this
announcement, the market reevaluated the true value of the Company's
shares, which had been buoyed by the potential exchange value of
Fisher's stock during the Class Period.

Accordingly, the Company's stock, which had closed at $6 3/8 prior to
announcement of the merger termination, closed at $4 13/16 on an
inordinate volume of 5,730,200 shares upon dissemination of the news.

As the sell-off continued, the price of the Company's stock settled
into the range of approximately $2 3/4 - $3 3/4.

While Fisher had abandoned the merger because of the results of its own
due diligence review of the Company's books and records, the public
only became aware of the truth on June 27, 2001.

On that date, the Company filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2001 with the SEC and disclosed, for the first time, the fact
that the Company's internal controls over inventory, accounts payable,
sales, and accounts receivable were, at all relevant times, materially
deficient.

The Company also revealed that it had previously issued financial
statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 which were materially
misleading.

As a result of these problems, the Company would be forced to restate
its previous financial data, and would also cause the Company's EBITDA
to be reduced, below the threshold that would have allowed the merger
to be completed.

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


QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Quicklogic Corporation (NASDAQ:QUIK) common
stock between October 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company, FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc. and Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 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.

In October 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
6,667,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $10
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:

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

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby they agreed to allocate the Company's shares to those
         customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional Corporation shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices

For further details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Rhythms NetConnections Inc. (NASDAQ:
RTHM.OB) between April 6, 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 its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Company common stock pursuant to the April
6, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Company shares to customers at the
IPO price.

To receive the allocations at the IPO price, the underwriters'
brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of Company stock rocketed
upward was intended to drive Company share price up to artificially
high levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
Thomas Burt or George Peters 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. E-mail should refer to
Rhythms.


SULZER MEDICA: Appellate Court To Review Implant Suits' Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to perform an expedited
review of the nationwide settlement to the Sulzer Medica hip system
litigation.

The Company is proposing a $783 million settlement to the suits, which
were filed after patients suffered severe pain and slipping after being
fitted with the Company's hip and knee implants.

More than 1,600 lawsuits were filed against the Company, who recalled
40,000 hip implants and withdrew some knee implants after patient
complaints started to grow.

The implants allegedly were not bonding properly to their bones.
Later, the Company determined that oil residue on the hip and knee
implants caused the problem.

The Company proposed to pay patients who needed surgery after receiving
the faulty hip or knee implants between $57,500 and $97,500 in cash and
stock.

Federal judge Kathleen O'Malley also decided to include about 1,600
faulty knee implants in the proposed settlement.

Andres Pereira, counsel for the plaintiffs says, "As we anticipated
when we appealed the preliminary class certification, the appellate
court is going to take a hard look at this inadequate and inappropriate
class settlement."


TALARIAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Talarian Corporation (NASDAQ: TARL) securities
between July 20, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

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

     (4) Paul A. Larson,

     (5) Michael A. Morgan and

     (6) Thomas J. Laffey

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

In July 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
4,200,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16.00
per share.

In connection therewith, it filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more 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


TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway File Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of of TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ:TSYS) common stock between August 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against:

     (1) Chase Securities, Inc.,

     (2) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (4) Banc of America Securities, LLC.,

     (5) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated,

     (6) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (7) Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., and

     (8) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC.

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

In August 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
4,700,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $17 per
share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more information, Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail: Three
Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-
7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Transmeta Corporation (NASDAQ: TMTA)
securities between November 7, 2000 and June 20, 2001, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock pursuant to the
November 7, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

The defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and its principal product, the Crusoe family of
microprocessors, stating that this technology represented a
revolutionary process that delivered longer batter life in Mobile
Internet Computers while delivering high performance.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Company shares to customers at the
IPO price.

To receive the allocations at the IPO price, the underwriters'
brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of the Company's stock
rocketed upward was intended to drive its share price up to
artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants falsely stated that the
Company's Crusoe chips produced both high performance and substantially
improved battery life.

As a result, the Company's stock traded as high as $50-7/8 per share.
In May 2001, Company insiders sold 829,500 of their Transmeta shares
for proceeds of over $10.5 million.

Then, just weeks later, the Company was forced to admit that its
results for the Second Quarter 2001 would be much worse than defendants
had previously represented and that it would, in order to properly
account for its impaired inventory, be forced to record a multi-million
dollar inventory charge in connection with its inventory for defective
and/or outdated products.

Following the Company's announcement, its stock collapsed to $5.12 per
share before closing at $5.36 per share, an 89% decline from its class
period high of $50,875.

For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gregory
Nespole or George Peters 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. E-mail should refer to
Transmeta.


UNITED STATES: Ag Dept Minority Employees Sue For Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minority employees of the United States Department of Agriculture filed
several class action suits against the department with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission alleging racial discrimination.

The department's African, Asian and Hispanic employees allege that they
are routinely denied promotions or are rejected when they apply for
loans and subsidies.

Members of the Coalition of Minority Employees, a labor group that
represents workers in the department's 33 agencies, met with
congressional staff members.

Representatives from the offices of John Doolitle, R-Rocklin, Cal
Cooley, D-Hanford and Gary Condit, D-Ceres, as well as from the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation attended the meeting.

Members of the coalition said they hoped the meeting will help open the
lines of communication with management.

Most of the complaints involved the Forest Service, the largest
division in the Agriculture Department, which fights fires and manages
timber.

Speakers in the meeting told of a labor contractor who left crews of
Hispanic workers in the forest without adequate food, water or
transportation, and prisoners who fight forest fires who are given
mixed directions when they are on the line.

Several said minorities face a glass ceiling even if they are qualified
for professional jobs.

"Lead agent", Allen Spencer, says he was denied promotions and
subjected to racial slurs while working as a computer specialist with
the Stanislaus National Forest in Sonora.  He further asserted
discrimination persists in the Forest Service because managers are
assigned to far-flung areas and allowed to make their own rules.

"Essentially, any employee who is not white or a member of the archaic
Forest Service culture of exclusion is going to be discriminated
against," he said in an interview with the Modesto Bee.


VENTRO CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D.CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Ventro Corporation
(NASDAQ:VNTR) securities during the period between February 15, 2000
and December 6, 2000, 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, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The Company is a builder and operator of business-to-business e-
commerce marketplace companies.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, it was evident to
defendants that the Company did not possess the technology to
successfully compete as a marketplace.

The defendants knew this would severely impair the Company's future
revenue growth but wanted to raise additional money through debt
offerings before the bottom fell out of its stock price.

Thus, defendants continued to make positive but false statements about
the Company's business and future revenues, and as a result, Company
stock traded as high as $243.50 per share during the class period.

The complaint further alleges that in December 2000, the Company
announced a restructuring in which it closed down two out of three of
its main B2B marketplaces.

In early 2001, it was revealed that defendants had realized by December
1999 that the Company's business model of independent marketplaces
didn't make sense and that even its partners were not satisfied with
its technology for operating the marketplaces.

By this time Company stock had declined to less than $2 per share,
inflicting billions of dollars of damage on plaintiff and the class.

For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Michael Miske, George
Peters or Fred Taylor Isquithcontact 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.   E-
mail should refer to Ventro.


VICINITY CORPORATION: "False, Misleading" Prospectus Fosters Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vicinity Corporation says it has meritorious defenses against the
several securities suits filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive against the
Company and:

     (1) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (2) Emerick M. Woods, and

     (3) David Seltzer

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 February 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
7,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $17.00
per share.

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

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

    (ii) the underwriter had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby it 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

The Company expects these cases to be consolidated.


WEBMD CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of WebMD Corporation formerly known as Healtheon
Corporation, (NASDAQ: HLTH) securities between February 10, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company's underwriters,
Goldman Sachs & Co. and Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated.

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

In February 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
5,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $8 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) defendants had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which defendants allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of Company shares issued in
         connection with the IPO; and

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

For more 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  * * *