CAR_Public/011102.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 2, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 215


                           Headlines

AMAZON.COM: Cohen Milstein Initiates W.D. WA Securities Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securites Suit in CA
CHANNEL 66: Faces Several Securities Suits Due To 1999 NBC Agreement
CRITICAL PATH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

DETROIT LIONS: Wasinger Kickham Commence Consumer Suit in Oakland MI
DURATEK INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Maryland Court
ENRON CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
ENRON TRANSREDES: Bolivian Farmers Sue For Oil Spill Damages
FIREPOND INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA
GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATION: Cohen Milstein Files S.D. NY Fraud Suit
HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Investors Sue For Bond Funds Mismanagement in WI
IMATRON INC.: Sued By Shareholders For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in CA
INTERNET SECURITY: Keller Rohrback Initiates GA Securities Suit

LABOR READY: Workers To Appeal Ruling Upholding Arbitration Agreement
ONYX SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Cohen Milstein Commences New Jersey Securities Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Witness Says Efforts Made To Make Safer Cigarette

UTSTARCOM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VERADO HOLDINGS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WASHINGTON: Federal Court Upholds Seattle's No-Protest Zone Order


                            *********


AMAZON.COM: Cohen Milstein Initiates W.D. WA Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Amazon.Com, Inc. (Nasdaq:AMZN) common stock
during the period between February 2, 2000 and March 9, 2001.

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

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the antifraud
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements, which artificially inflated the price
of Company securities during the class period.

The complaint also alleges that, throughout the class period,
defendants touted the Company's investments in various joint ventures
called Amazon Commerce Network partners (ACNs) and the purported high
margin revenue stream created by such ventures.

Because of the Company's ongoing operating losses, it was critical for
the Company to demonstrate to the market significant cash flow to
offset such losses until the Company became profitable.

However, defendants failed to disclose until the end of the class
period that:

     (1) the ACN investments were losing millions of dollars;

     (2) much of the purported revenue recorded appeared to investors
         as cash, but was actually in the form of highly speculative
         equity investments;

     (3) the revenues recognized under the ACN agreements made the
         Company's losses appear less than they were and distorted the
         Company's reported cash flow and

     (4) based on its true financial condition Amazon.com would face
         significant credit and operational issues.

Defendants' misrepresentations caused the price of Company securities
to be artificially inflated throughout the class period.

Defendants took advantage of this run up in the Company's stock price
to sell over $31.5 million of their own shares on unsuspecting
investors.

Additionally, defendants also were able to complete an offering of
convertible debt priced at more than $680 million in February 2000.

For further details, contact Steven J. Toll or Clarence Williams by
Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com
or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com


APPLE COMPUTER: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Apple Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) publicly
traded securities during the period between July 19, 2000 and September
28, 2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint charges the defendants with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial condition.

Specifically, the suit alleges that 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, attractive, and contained new and revolutionary features.

At this 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 the achievement of strong
revenue and earnings per share (EPS) growth in its 4th Quarter 2000 and
2001.

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

Suddenly, just 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.  

Some of these products had been 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 their 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, its stock collapsed from $61-3/64 on
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 unanticipated revelations.

The stock decline wiped out over $10 billion of Apple's market
capitalization in a matter of days.

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


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securites Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC commenced a securities class action
suit on behalf of purchasers of Broadcom Corp. (NASDAQ: BRCM) common
stock during the period between July 30, 2000 and February 27, 2001.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.

The suits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company is a provider of highly integrated silicon solutions that
enable broadband digital transmission of voice, video and data to and
throughout the home and within the business enterprise.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made positive but false
statements about the Company's results and business, while concealing
material adverse information about agreements with certain companies it
acquired, which essentially resulted in the Company buying its own
revenues.

As a result, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
levels, permitting the three individual defendants to sell $45.8
million worth of their stock.

Then, The Wall Street Journal published an article on the Company
entitled "Warrant Deals Raise Concerns on Broadcom," in which analysts
and accounting experts questioned the "legitimacy" of the transactions
and termed the agreements "troubling."

The company's stock immediately dropped, falling 16% to $53, before
closing at $53.625 and falling to $49.25 by the end of February.

For further details, contact Steven J. Toll or Robert Smits by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005
by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com


CHANNEL 66: Faces Several Securities Suits Due To 1999 NBC Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel 66 of Tampa, Inc. faces several class action suits filed in
Florida, California and Delaware for breach of fiduciary duty relating
to their September 1999 agreements with National Broadcasting
Corporation (NBC).

The suits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors in these venues:

     (1) the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida,

     (2) the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and

     (3) the Superior Court of the State of California

NBC acquired $415 million liquidation preference of the Company's
preferred stock in September 1999.

The suits generally allege that the Company's directors rejected a
takeover offer and instead completed the NBC transactions, thereby
precluding the plaintiffs from obtaining a premium price for their
shares.

The Company labeled the suits "without merit".


CRITICAL PATH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC filed a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Critical Path, Inc.
(Nasdaq:CPTH) between April 20, 2000 and February 1, 2001.

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

The suit alleges that the defendants misled investors about the
Company's revenues and earnings and that the Company failed to follow
generally accepted accounting principles when preparing its financial
statements.

In February 2001, the Company announced it had discovered "a number of
transactions that put into question its financial results."

In addition, the Company stated that its 2000 fourth quarter results
may be "materially misleading" and that two senior officers were placed
"on leave."

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

For more information, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Robert Smits by
Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com
or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com


DETROIT LIONS: Wasinger Kickham Commence Consumer Suit in Oakland MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasinger Kickham and Hanley filed a consumer class action in the
Oakland County Circuit Court against The Detroit Lions Inc. on behalf
of Lions ticket holders.

The suit alleges that the lease agreement between the Lions and the
city of Pontiac allows the city to assess, and the Lions to collect
from their fans, a $1.50 service fee for the city if certain conditions
stated in the lease were met.

The suit further alleges that since at least 1995 the conditions for
imposing the service fees have not been met. As a result, the city has
not been entitled to receive the service fees, and the Lions have not
had the right to collect the fees from their fans.

The Lions have stated in court filings in their pending case against
the City of Pontiac that "the conditions which allow imposition of
(Service Fees) are not currently met and have not been met for several
years."

As a result, the Lions have not paid any service fees for the 2001
season, and have sought to recover approximately $6.7 million in
service fees paid by Lions fans in previous years.

The suit asserts that that money should be returned to the fans who
paid the service fees, and not given to the Lions or retained by the
city.

The printed Lions game tickets disclose the $1.50 service fee by a
separate line item denominated "City of Pontiac Service Fee." The
tickets clearly show that the fee is NOT part of the ticket price but
is being "passed on" by the Lions.

Nevertheless, the Lions have continually collected the $1.50 fee from
their fans even when the Lions had no obligation to collect the fee or
pay it to the city.

The Lions allegedly have not disclosed to their fans that the service
fees are not owed to the city or that the Lions are not paying the
service fees to the city.

For more information, contact Stephen Wasinger or Gregory Hanley by
Mail: 100 Beacon Centre, 26862 Woodward Avenue, Royal Oak, Michigan
48067 or by Phone: (248) 414-9942, (248) 414-9948 or (248) 613-1790.


DURATEK INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Maryland Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf
of all investors who bought Duratek, Inc. (Nasdaq: DRTK) common stock
between March 9, 2000 and March 13, 2001.

The action seeks damages against the defendants for violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint accuses the Company and two of its top officers with
inflating the Company's stock price by issuing false and misleading
financial statements for 1999 and the first three quarters of 2000.

On March 14, 2001, the Company admitted that additional burial and
transportation costs would adversely affect the Company's fourth
quarter and fiscal year 2000 financial results as well as the financial
results for the first quarter of 2001.

Moreover, the Company announced that a review of its commercial waste
processing operations had indicated "potentially negative variances in
certain waste processing accounts."

On April 18, 2001, the Company further announced that it was restating
its previously reported consolidated financial results for 1999 and the
first three quarters of 2000 to reflect a reconciliation that had not
been previously been performed.

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
     

ENRON CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Enron Corp. (NYSE:ENE) common stock between
January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, against the Company and officers Kenneth
Lay, Jeffrey K. Skilling and Andrew Fastow.

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 January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

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

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

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

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

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

Subsequently, the Company revealed that a material portion of the  
unwinding of investments with certain limited partnerships was
controlled by Enron's chief financial officer.

The Company further revealed that it would be eliminating more than $1
billion in shareholder equity as a result of its unwinding of the
investments.

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

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

For further details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


ENRON TRANSREDES: Bolivian Farmers Sue For Oil Spill Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
A Bolivian farming community commenced a $4 million class action suit
against Enron Transredes Services LLC, an affiliate of oil giants Enron
Corporation and Shell Corporation for damages due to a January 2000 oil
spill.

Residents of Chuquia, a community in the Andean province of Oruro,
filed the suit in La Paz court five days after the Company agreed to
pay a total of $3.7 million to farmers affected by the spill.

The incident occurred when the pipeline, which transports Bolivian
crude from La Paz to Arica, Chile, ruptured, dumping 29,000 barrels of
oil into the Desaguadero River and polluting thousands of acres of
arable land.

The Ministry of Sustainable Development and the Environment was also
named in the suit for alleged negligence in the case. The agency's
investigation has lasted 21 months.

The suit alleges that it would take from 10 to 15 years to
decontaminate the 700,000-hectare (1,728,395-acre) zone affected by the
spill, which also afflicted some 24,500 goats, 1,320 head of cattle and
125 llamas.

A Company spokesman said the suit jeopardizes the firm's agreement with
another 100 communities to pay a total of $3.7 million in damages as
determined by an audit.

They also agreed to pay $2.2 million for damage to public works due to
the spill, but filed an appeal against an additional $1.9 million fine
it had been ordered to pay the government.

The Company said the proposed agreement was unprecedented because it
was the first time that a firm involved in an environmental disaster in
Bolivia had agreed to pay damages to the people affected as well as to
the government.

The firm noted it had spent $40 million in cleaning up the Desaguadero
River and the lands affected by the spill and in medical treatment for
the affected farmers and animals.

The Company operates Bolivia's largest crude pipelines and gas lines.


FIREPOND INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Firepond, Inc. (NASDAQ: FIRE)
between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against the Company and:

     (1) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (2) Klaus P. Besier and

     (3) Paul K. McDermott

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 February 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $22 per
share.

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

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

    (ii) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Firepond shares
         to those customers in the Firepond IPO in exchange for which
         the customers agreed to purchase additional Firepond 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


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC filed a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (Nasdaq:GENI)
securities during the period of December 21, 1999 through and including
September 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 more information, 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


GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATION: Cohen Milstein Files S.D. NY Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of securities of Globalstar Telecommunication,
Ltd. (Nasdaq:GSTRF) during the period of December 6, 1999 through and
including October 27, 2000.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, Bernard Schwartz,
chairman and Loral Space & Communications Ltd., Globalstar's
controlling shareholder.

The defendants allegedly violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's prospects and financial status as
well as the sale of its core products - satellite telephones.

It is also alleged that defendants failed to disclose that the Company
was significantly behind on its internal business plans for the sale of
satellite telephones and that the business plan was failing further
because European regulators had not yet approved the Company's
telephones for sale. The delays prevented sales in one of the Company's
principal markets.

Moreover, defendants failed to disclose that the Company's phones were
unable to provide "roaming" services, rendering them uncompetitive in
developed nations, where the bulk of the Company's phones' sales were
expected.

In addition, defendants issued several false statements indicating that
the Company's business model was not suffering from the same marketing
problems experienced by Iridium.

Iridium was the Company's primary competitor in the satellite telephone
industry and it fell into bankruptcy due to problems with its business
model and market acceptance.

As a result of the defendant's alleged false and misleading statements,
the price of Globalstar securities was artificially inflated during the
Class Period.

For further details, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Robert Smits by
Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail:
afriedman@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.cmht.com


HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Investors Sue For Bond Funds Mismanagement in WI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Advisors faces a class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging mismanagement of the
Company's municipal bond funds.

The suit was filed against the Company and its auditor
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, alleging that they misled investors about the
true value of their now-collapsed municipal bond funds in violation of
federal securities law.

The Company unexpectedly cut the net asset value of its High-Yield
Municipal Bond Fund by 70 percent and its High-Yield Short Duration
Municipal Fund by 44 percent last year - infuriating investors and
spawning 19 separate lawsuits alleging fraud and mismanagement.

Attorney Oliver Burt III of the law firm Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
Burt and Pucillo consolidated the claims in the 19 suits to create the
amended complaint.

He alleges the Company set inaccurate net asset values on the funds
based on incorrect pricing of the bonds held by the funds. The funds
bought illiquid high-yield and unrated municipal bonds.

The Securities and Exchange Commission seized the funds' assets and
gave them to a receiver to study returning as much money as possible
back to the investors.

The receiver, Philip Stern, a lawyer in Chicago, has since found the
bonds to be worth far less than initially thought.

Burt also accuses PricewaterhouseCoopers of not realizing the
underlying assets were being mispriced in several audits, to the
detriment of investors.

Relating to the High Yield Short Duration Fund in particular, the
complaint said portfolio manager Tom Conlin previously managed a Strong
Funds municipal bond mutual funds portfolio "by investing in
instruments with longer maturities than were suitable for inclusion in
a short-term fund for the purpose of securing higher yield, resulting
in that fund under-performing 95 percent of its peers in 1995."

Conlin was later fired from that job, according to the complaint.

A spokesman for Heartland Advisors said the firm has no comment on the
suit, while a PriceWaterhouseCoopers spokesman said they will "stand
behind the audit opinions we gave and know of no basis for which there
could be a claim against the firm based on our audits."


IMATRON INC.: Sued By Shareholders For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Imatron, Inc. faces two securities class actions filed by Company
shareholders in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo.

The suit was filed against the Company and its board of directors:

     (1) Douglas P. Boyd,

     (2) Allen M. Chozen,

     (3) John L. Couch,

     (4) William J. McDaniel,

     (5) S. Lewis Meyer,

     (6) Richard K. Myler,

     (7) Terry Ross and

     (8) Aldo J. Test

The two suits generally allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the Company's planned merger with General Electric Company (GE)
that will lead to the Company becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of GE.

The Company believes the suits are without merit and not in the best
interests of its shareholders and intends to mount a vigorous defense
against these claims.

Imatron, Inc. designs and produces a high-performance computed
tomography (CT) scanner that uses an electron beam to capture cross-
sectional images of a patient's anatomy.

The Company also offers repair, training, and support services to other
makers of high-tech medical equipment.


INTERNET SECURITY: Keller Rohrback Initiates GA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:ISSX) who
purchased the Company's common stock between April 5, 2001 and July 2,
2001, inclusive.

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

Shareholders allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
which artificially inflated the market price of the Company's stock.

The Company's earnings announcement, in which the defendants
optimistically announced that the Company "expects to achieve revenues
in the range of $64-$67 million and earnings in the range of $0.15 to
0.16 per diluted share" for the quarter ending June 30, 2001, was
allegedly made even though defendants knew that it could not meet these
expectations.

During this period of artificial inflation, Company insiders took
advantage of their insider status and sold off more than $18 million
worth of Company stock.

Rather than reaching the expectations of the report, the Company issued
a press release in which the Company lowered its expected revenues to
$50- $52 million and revealed expected losses of up to $0.02 per share.

As a result of this announcement Company stock price fell by more than
40%.

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


LABOR READY: Workers To Appeal Ruling Upholding Arbitration Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Labor Ready, Inc.'s former and current employees said they
going to appeal a West Virginia federal court's decision upholding the
Company's arbitration agreement with the workers.

The suit alleges the Company illegally deducted fees for payment in
cash, transportation to job sites and use of safety equipment from the
employees' wages.

Last month, the court upheld the Company's arbitration agreement with
its workers and denied the plaintiff's attempt to add a number of the
Company's customers as co-defendants in the case.

The suit sought to establish a class of "thousands of workers" but
after 14 months of aggressive advertising, only 64 workers had joined
the suit.

Stuart Calwell, lawyer for the plaintiffs, says, "The ruling was
clearly wrong as a matter of law and fact."  Calwell also raised
serious concerns about the Company's recent press statements about the
ruling, "In all of my years of practice, I have never seen something
that is so in variance with the facts,"

The company's press release says the suit was "backed by the BCTD [AFL-
CIO Building and Construction Trades Department]" and was designed to
"harass Labor Ready and its customers."

Calwell refuted this, saying the lawsuit had nothing whatsoever to do
with the Building Trades.

"This lawsuit alleges that thousands of hard-working Labor Ready
employees have worked every day for years and received far fewer wages
than the law mandates."" Calwell concluded, "and we will prove it."

He said papers have been prepared to appeal the order and expressed
confidence that the court will reverse the ruling on appeal.


ONYX SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Onyx Software Corporation (NASDAQ:ONXS) common stock
between February 12, 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.

In February 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
3,100,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $13 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:

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

     (2) 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 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


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody filed a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Providian Financial Corporation (NYSE:PVN) securities
from between June 6, 2001 and October 11, 2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and officers David
Alvarez, James Rowe and Shailesh J. Mehta.

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

More specifically, and as alleged in the Complaint, at the beginning of
the class period, defendants represented that the Company would have
sequential earnings growth as it had represented in each quarter since
its inception as a public company.

However, defendants actually knew that the Company's financial
condition was eroding and had the motive and the opportunity to
perpetrate the fraudulent scheme and course of business described
herein.

During the class period, the defendants sold nearly $22 million worth
of their own shares at allegedly artificially inflated prices of as
much as $49.30 per share.

Last month, the Company revealed that, contrary to prior assurances by
defendants of it's continuing revenue and EPS growth, including
defendants' assurance weeks earlier that it would post another quarter
of sequential EPS growth, it announced that it would post no EPS growth
and that its EPS would be only a small fraction of what defendants had
led the market to believe, sending shares into a free fall.

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


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Cohen Milstein Commences New Jersey Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Schering-Plough Corporation (NYSE:SGP)
securities during the period between July 25, 2000 and February 15,
2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and several of its officers
and directors.

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

During the class period, the Company issued three earnings releases
highlighting the Company's purported success and growth.

The suit alleges that these three releases contained statements that
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
certain material facts, including:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing manufacturing difficulties
         at its plants in Union, NJ, Kenilworth, NJ, Manati, Puerto
         Rico and Las Piedras, Puerto Rico, such that it was distracted
         from producing products at the levels budgeted for the
         respective plants;

     (2) that the Company's manufacturing policies and procedures at
         its plants in Union, NJ, Kenilworth, NJ, Manati, Puerto Rico
         and Las Piedras, Puerto Rico, did not comply with applicable
         FDA regulations regarding the manufacture of pharmaceutical
         products;

     (3) that the Company's manufacturing problems were more widespread
         and severe than the previously-announced problems at the
         aerosol plant;

     (4) given the Company's manufacturing difficulties, the risk that
         the FDA would force the Company to curtail its operations and
         delay FDA approval of desloratadine so that the Company could
         correct the problems was much greater than defendants had
         disclosed; and

     (5) that based on past practices and policies of the FDA and the
         nature and extent of the identified deficiencies, it was
         certain that the FDA would conduct a follow-up inspection of
         the New Jersey facilities.

The suit further alleges that defendants' failure to disclose the
extent of its exposure to its manufacturing problems, falsely implied
that there were no known impediments to receiving approval for its
most-important new drug, desloratadine, which was in the final stage of
the FDA's review process.

Desloratadine, is scheduled to be the successor drug to Claritin, once
the patent for Claritin expires in December 2002.

After the market closed on February 15, 2001, the Company finally
disclosed the extent of the problems it was experiencing with its
manufacturing practices and announced that it would be reducing sales
and earnings expectations for the first quarter of 2001 and for the
full-year 2001.

The Company also warned that the FDA was requiring that all of its
manufacturing deficiencies be resolved before the FDA grants  
Desloratadine final approval.

Wall Street was shocked by the Company's February 15, 2001
announcement. In extremely heavy after-hours trading, the price of its
common stock fell nearly $10 per share, after closing earlier in the
day at $48.32.

On February 16, 2001, the day after the announcement, the Company's
common stock opened up for trading at $38.25.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Robert Smits by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 by
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Witness Says Efforts Made To Make Safer Cigarette
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A toxicologist testified for national tobacco company R.J. Reynolds in
the landmark West Virginia smokers suit, saying that over a 30-year
period the Company used extensive research to attempt to develop a less
hazardous cigarette.

Donald deBethizy took the stand Wednesday, saying that the Company
failed in its efforts because there was no consensus in the industry or
public health community about what makes a "risk-free" cigarette.

deBethizy oversaw biological testing in laboratories all over the
country for 15 years and is now president of a Reynolds spin-off
company marketing pharmaceuticals.

He was the second witness to testify for the defendants in the suit,
which was filed by 250,000 healthy smokers who want four major tobacco
companies to pay for an unprecedented medical monitoring program.

The suit also names tobacco giants Lorillard, Brown and Williamson and
Philip Morris as defendants, and alleges the companies failed to act
responsibly after evidence showed cigarettes cause disease.

The smokers want the companies to pay for a medical screening program
that included spirometry tests and computed tomography scans that
reportedly could lead to early detection of smoking related diseases.

deBethizy added that Reynold's toxicity assessment facilities was as
good as or better than most of the biological laboratories he studied
for 15 years.

The Company reportedly tested chemical, cellular and animal inhalation
testing for many years to determine whether changes in its cigarettes
made them any more or less toxic.

deBethizy also said that the Company made many scientific breakthroughs
toward making a safe cigarette and has cut tar levels by more than 70
percent since the 1950s.

However, he agreed that a low-tar cigarette wasn't any safer than a
regular cigarette because "light" cigarettes were 10% more biologically
active than regular cigarettes. They may yield less tar but what
remains could possibly cause more cell mutation.

The least risky cigarette was a Reynolds product called Eclipse - an
unconventional cigarette that heats tobacco instead of burning it.

The Eclipse is the newest version of the heated cigarette, which was
constructed based on the knowledge that it was the combustion of the
ingredients that generated many carcinogens.

Eclipse is now in market testing phase and is being sold over the
Internet, but deBethizy claimed that the product was doing poorly with
smokers.

HE claimed smokers didn't like or buy the product, because for most
smokers, "it was almost like going from whole milk to skim milk."

The experiment taught Reynolds that it could dramatically reduce the
toxicity of cigarettes, but they reasoned that if smokers don't buy it,
a "safer" cigarette does no good.

DeBethizy supported the contention of the Companies by saying, "Smokers
are being told there is no safe cigarette and the best way to reduce
your risk is to quit."


UTSTARCOM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of UTStarcom,
Inc. (NASDAQ:UTSI) between March 2, 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.

Last March 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 10
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $18 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 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

     (2) 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 more information, 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 UTSTARCOM.


VERADO HOLDINGS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Verado Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ:VRDO), formerly known as FirstWorld Communications, Inc.
between March 8, 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.

Last March 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
10,000,000 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:

     (1) 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 the
         shares issued in connection with the IPO; and

     (2) 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 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


WASHINGTON: Federal Court Upholds Seattle's No-Protest Zone Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal judge Barbara J. Rothstein upheld the City of Seattle's
decision to impose a no-protest zone and curfews after violent protests
erupted during World Trade Organization meetings in late 1999.

More than 600 people filed the class action suit against the City,
Mayor Paul Schell, and former Police Chief Norman Stamper, for closing
25 blocks in the downtown area during the WTO meetings in November and
December, 1999.

Schell barred protesters from the area while permitting business
owners, workers, shoppers and residents to enter the area.

The protesters alleged that the mayor violated several of their rights,
listing free speech and assembly and their 14th Amendment right to
equal protection.

Rothstein ruled that Schell was entitled to close the area, writing,
"Free speech must sometimes bend to public safety.there is no evidence
that the `manifest purpose' of the city was to quell expression."

Rothstein ruled that Mayor Paul Schell was legally entitled to close 25
blocks in the downtown area to protesters during the WTO meetings Nov.
30-Dec. 4, 1999.

She further said that the order didn't favor one type of demonstration
over another and was necessary for public safety, adding "Safety is
recognized as a significant government interest, as are the First
Amendment rights of the WTO delegates."

The eruption of protests surprised city police, as they faced off
violently with protesters for almost 24 hours.

Rothstein also said the police had enough reason to implement the
order, as then president Clinton had arrived to appear at the
conference while chaos and vandalism still ensued.

Mayor Paul Schell hailed the decision, saying in an interview with The
Freedom Forum, "I feel really good that the court said, yes, we made
the right decisions under challenging circumstances."

The plaintiffs and civil libertarians were upset with the decision,
saying they hoped to prevent future clampdowns and tight controls
on political protests.

Doug Honig, public education director for ACLU Washington said that the
plaintiffs were not a threat to public safety.

He asserts, "We think people have a constitutional right, even in
dangerous times, to say what they want to say politically. And the
government can't tell them there are regulations where you can't go
shopping or pass out political leaflets."

    
                               *********

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  * * *