CAR_Public/011105.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Monday, November 5, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 216


                              Headlines


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Suit in N.D. Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Outlines Grand Conspiracy To Defraud Public
AVANTGO INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CARESCIENCE INC.: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D.PA

DIGITALTHINK INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ENRON CORPORATION: Lionel Glancy Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
FEDERAL AVIATION: AZ Residents Consider Suit Over Flight Path Changes
FORD MOTOR: Documents On Rollovers Question Ford Explorer Design
FORD MOTOR: Resumes Settlement Talks With Workers Re Pending Lawsuits

IMPSAT FIBER: Milberg Weiss Announces Suit Filed In S.D. New York
LAFARGE CORPORATION: Court Certifies Factory Operations Particle Suit
METASOLV SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit In NY
METRICOM INC.: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
NET PERCEPTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Suit Lodged In SD New York

NEXTCARD INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
NEXTCARD INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In ND CA
NORTHPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Sues In S.D. New York
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit For $12.3M
SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued For Credit Card Confidentiality Policy Violations

SOUTH SHORE: Former Residents Sue For Mold and Mildew Problems, Damage
SPORT-HALEY: Dyer & Shuman Begins Securities Lawsuit In Colorado
SULZER MEDICA: Appeals Court Reverses $783M Settlement Approval
TAISHUN COUNTY: Chinese Court Awards Tunnel Workers $25 Million
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Witness Testifies To Companies' Research Efforts
TUT SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Suit Filed In S.D. NY


                              *********


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo lodged a securities
class action against Apropos Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:APRS) on behalf
of all investors who bought Company stock in its February 17, 2000
public offering or on the open market through May 15, 2000.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, charged the Company with making false statements about the
composition of the company's management team in regulatory filings
linked to its initial public offering.

According to the complaint, the prospectus for the February 17, 2000
offering falsely stated that co-founders Patrick K. Brady and William
W. Bach were active members of its executive management team when they
had stopped playing important roles within the company months before
the prospectus was issued.

Named as defendants are the company, its top directors and the
underwriters who helped take it public.

The prospectus listed Brady as Chief Technology Officer and Bach as
Vice President of technology, but Company President and CEO Kevin G.
Kerns had effectively ousted Brady after a power struggle that
culminated in July 1999.

Though Brady maintained his title, he no longer had a company office or
any employees who reported to him. Similarly, Kerns stripped Bach of
his executive managerial responsibilities and involvement in shaping
the company's core technology.

Kerns, who became the de-facto CTO, attempted to hire a replacement for
Brady before the prospectus was issued, but was unsuccessful. So, Brady
and Bach were listed in the prospectus as technology officers.

The Company issued nearly 4 million shares of common stock at $22 per
share to thousands of investors based on offering materials that
falsely stated that the founders who designed its key technological
product were managing the company.

"As a technology company whose business plan and future success
depended heavily on proprietary technology, investors considered it
important that the Apropos founders -- the people who developed and
patented that proprietary technology -- still believed in the company,
its business and its technology," the complaint says.

For further details, contact Steven D. Morris or Michael G. Lange by
Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926
By E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bermanesq.com


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed recently a class
action lawsuit against Apropos Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: APRS). The
suit was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased Apropos stock
in its February 17, 2000 initial public offering or in the open market
during the period between February 17, 2000 through May 15, 2000,
inclusive.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Eastern Division).

The Complaint alleges that Apropos, a technology-driven customer
interaction management solution company, the Company's top directors
and the underwriters who helped take the Company public, violated
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

In particular, it is alleged that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained material misrepresentations
and omissions regarding the role that two of the Company's co-founders
- Patrick K. Brady and William W. Bach - played in the Company at that
time.

Specifically, it is alleged that the Company's Prospectus
misrepresented that both Brady and Bach were active members of its
executive management team and the Company's most senior technology
officers.

Brady was listed as "Chief Technology Officer" and Bach was listed as
"Vice President, Technology" when both had stopped playing important
roles within the company months before the prospectus was issued.

It is further alleged that Apropos' President and Chief Executive
Officer Kevin G. Kerns had effectively pushed Brady out of the Company
after a power struggle that culminated in July 1999.

Brady no longer maintained a company office, had no employees who
reported to him, and had no further ongoing involvement in the daily
affairs of the Company.

Similarly, Kerns demoted Bach and stripped him of his managerial
responsibilities and involvement in shaping the company's core
technology.

At the time of the IPO, the Company's technology and development
departments were in disarray. Kerns, who took on the CTO's functions,
attempted to hire a replacement for Brady before the Prospectus was
issued, but was unsuccessful.

Apropos issued nearly 4 million shares of common stock, raising more
than $87 million, to thousands of investors based on offering materials
that falsely stated that the Company's founders who designed its key
technological product were managing the company.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. by Phone: 888-476-
6529 or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Outlines Grand Conspiracy To Defraud Public
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance companies and the asbestos industry forged a "secret
conspiracy" to intentionally defraud the public regarding the dangers
posed by fire-resistant materials, claims a purported class action
filed last week.

According to a report by The Charleston Gazette, the plaintiffs possess
various evidences pointing to an alliance to suppress relevant
information regarding the health hazards of asbestos exposure.

This alleged conspiracy allowed the insurance firms to force several
complainants to settle their claims for amounts substantially less than
their true value.

The suit filed in Berkeley County Circuit Court in West Virginia names
14 insurance companies and subsidiaries, including Aetna, Travelers and
Commercial Union.

The suit quoted the instructions given by Travelers to its defense
lawyers in 1980:

     (1) "Never admit the authenticity" of certain documents previously
         discovered by the plaintiffs.

     (2) "Don't attempt to introduce pre-1964" documents, "as this
         would undermine a state-of-the-art defense."

     (3) "No attempt should be made to [interview] any witness unless
         the witness' history and prior testimony had been thoroughly
         reviewed."

The suit also cites a 1977 memo from Aetna Insurance Co. outlining the
mounting problem of asbestos claims.

"The potential for punitive damages is very real, since there is
evidence that the asbestos industry knew of the hazards many years ago,
yet failed to warn," the memo said.

Asbestos was once extremely popular as a fire-resistant insulator. When
inhaled, the material's tiny fibers allegedly cause various health
problems, including a fatal and irreversible lung condition.


AVANTGO INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of AvantGo Inc.
(NASDAQ: AVGO) between September 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 and:

     (1) Richard Owen, CEO, Director;

     (2) David Cooper, CFO,

     (3) Felix Lin, Chairman,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (5) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and

     (6) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

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 September 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
5,500,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $12
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) 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 Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
         10customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
         allocate Company 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 information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman
by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com  


CARESCIENCE INC.: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D.PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC filed a securities class action against
CareScience, Inc. (NASDAQ:CARE) and its principal officers and
directors.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's securities during the period from June 28, 2000
through and including November 1, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11,12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and misled investors by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts because the
prospectus:

     (1) represented that the Company intended to use $20 million of
         the proceeds of its June, 2000 public offering for product
         development, and an additional $13 million to expand the
         Company's sales and marketing efforts;

     (2) stated that the Company's operating expenses were expected to
         continue to increase "as we expand our product development and
         sales and marketing efforts;" and that "as we execute our
         strategy we expect significant increases in our operating
         expenses to fund development of current and new product
         lines;" and

     (3) touted the Company's Careleader.com and CareScience.com
         products, stating that the sales of those products were
         expected to commence in 2001

In fact:

     (i) as disclosed at the end of the class period, the Company was
         planning only extremely minimal increases in selling, general
         and administrative expenses, a rate of increase which would
         not equal the represented $13 million to be used for the
         purpose for more than a decade. Indeed the increase in such
         expenditures was completed with the addition of a mere eight
         sales and marketing employees;

    (ii) the Company planned only modest increases in research and
         development, at a rate which similarly would not equal the
         represented amount to be used for that purpose for more than a
         decade; and

   (iii) the Company had yet to determine the marketability of its
         CareScience and CareLeader products, and, as a result, had no
         reasonable basis for the representation that sales of those
         products would begin in 2001

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick,
Karen Orman, or Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by
Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's
Website: www.bergermontague.com


DIGITALTHINK INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of DigitalThink, Inc
(NASDAQ:DTHK) between February 24, 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) Peter J. Goettner, CEO, Chairman of the Board,

     (2) Michael W. Pope, CFO,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

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
4,400,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $14
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 the underwriters 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 underwriters agreed to allocate Company 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 Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


ENRON CORPORATION: Lionel Glancy Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased
securities of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) between Jan. 18, 2000, and
Oct. 17, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors alleging violations of federal securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the nature of Enron's business, financial results
and operations caused Enron's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting enormous damages on investors.

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, Calif. 90067 by Phone: (310) 201-
9150 or (888) 773-9224 (toll-free) or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


FEDERAL AVIATION: AZ Residents Consider Suit Over Flight Path Changes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) could face a class action
from Cave Creek County, Arizona locals who oppose changes in the flight
paths from Sky Harbor Airport.

Officials with the agency are expected to announce changes in the
flight paths out of the airport, the fifth busiest in the nation, by
the end of November.  The routes could be in use by Feb. 21, 2002.

Local coalition Quiet Skies for Kids believes the new flight paths
could bring over 107,000 low-flying jets directly over Cave Creek every
year.

They said the noise in the new flights could disrupt the quiet that the
locals enjoy and cause property values to decline.

The Cave Creek Unified School District has also expressed consternation
over the plan as three of the new paths would go directly over the main
school campus.

Quiet at Spur Cross Ranch, just north of Cave Creek, could also be
disrupted. Cave Creek, county and state taxpayers paid $21.8 million
for this land in order to preserve it earlier this year.

The coalition is now focusing on getting communities, homeowner groups
and individual property owners to finance and support the suit, and has
met mixed reactions.

Cave Creek County seems to be firmly behind the suit and it was
recently decided to let the County take the lead in the lawsuit.

CCUSD Superintendent John Gordon, a long-time Quiet Skies supporter,
did not say that the school district should join in on the lawsuit at
meetings but also never said that it shouldn't.

Recently, Cave Creek Mayor Vincent Francia met with his Scottsdale
counterpart Mary Manross to see if her city would support the lawsuit
against the FAA.

Manross "didn't say yes and she didn't say no," according to Francia.  
However, she was not sure what to oppose as the FAA has not yet
announced the new routes.

Property owners in unincorporated areas of the county and exclusive
developments like Desert Mountain have attended Quiet Skies meetings
recently to learn more about the group.

Homeowners from the Sinquadados area have also expressed an interest in
going ahead with the lawsuit.

Sinquadados resident Ray Sullivan says, "When we built at Sinquadados
there was no noise and you could enjoy the night sky.That is what we
spent the money for and now they are going to take it away."

Quiet Skies leader John Hoeppner assesses the commitment that has come
from individual property owners as an attempt to preserve Desert Rural
zoning.

"Part of Desert Rural is absolute quiet," Hoeppner said of the
difference between low ambient noise levels here and the spikes in
sound when a jet passes by.


FORD MOTOR: Documents On Rollovers Question Ford Explorer Design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Southern Indiana unsealed documents
that claimed vehicle design problems in Ford Explorers caused deadly
rollovers that led to more than 200 deaths and many injuries.

More than 300 personal injury and class action suits were filed against
Ford Motor Company and Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. due to the accidents.

The documents refer to investigations in Venezuela that found problems
with both faulty tires and the vehicles' suspensions.

The primary document in question is a 1999 report by Ford engineers in
Venezuela that said the vehicle's shock absorbers were too soft for the
country's terrain, and that the tires were experiencing tread
separation.

Victor Diaz, counsel for the plaintiffs, added that the documents
revealed that the Companies delayed taking precautionary actions abroad
despite evidence of problems with the sport utility vehicle and its
tires.

He added that Ford disregarded the design concerns because it feared a
design change in Venezuela would also require a change in U.S. models.

In a brief, Diaz wrote that the two companies "withheld material
information regarding the full extent of the problem, committed
egregious errors of judgment" and "delayed taking corrective or
preventative action."

He reiterated that the documents clearly show that "the engineers in
Venezuela were critical of the stability of the Ford Explorer vehicle,
and believed that a problem in the design of the vehicle was
contributing to the rollover accidents."

Ford spokesman Ken Zino denied that claim, and said the report was an
"early draft," merely an initial report by a junior engineer.

He says, "Frankly, we don't care about this document.Extensive testing
in Venezuela and the U.S. showed that not only is there not an issue
with the shock absorber, but the Explorer before, during and after the
tread separation acts typical of an SUV. There are reams of data to
back that up."

Bridgestone/Firestone spokeswoman Jill Bratina said the company
disagrees with the claims and will make that clear as litigation
proceeds.

"This is the plaintiff's version of history," she said. "They have
excerpted documents, taken them out of context and omitted significant
details. It does not accurately portray the situation."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration independently
investigated the rollovers and has said there was no evidence to
support Bridgestone/Firestone's claim that the Explorer's design was
faulty and at least partly to blame.


FORD MOTOR: Resumes Settlement Talks With Workers Re Pending Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. lawyers revived last week settlement talks with current
and former white-collar employees who have pending age, gender and
racial discrimination suits against the Company, according to the Wall
Street Journal.

The resumption of talks followed the instatement of William Clay Ford,
Jr. as the new Chief Executive of the Company, replacing Jacques
Nasser.

It was Nasser who instituted two years ago a rating system that tended
to favor the minorities and women in the Company, and eliminated white
male managers.

The rating system attracted several individual lawsuits as well as
purported class actions.  It also prompted a reverse discrimination
suit based on allegations that it targeted older white male employees
for dismissal.


IMPSAT FIBER: Milberg Weiss Announces Suit Filed In S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee for In re: Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed on November 1, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of IMPSAT Fiber Networks Inc. (NASDAQ: IMPT) between
February 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) IMPSAT, Ricardo A. Verdaguer (CEO, President and Director),      

     (2) Enrique M. Pescarmona (Chairman),

     (3) Guillermo Jofre (CFO)
     (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,
     (5) Goldman Sachs & Co.,
     (6) Salomon Smith Barney Inc., and
     (7) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

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.

On or about February 1, 2000, IMPSAT commenced an initial public
offering of 11,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $17 per share.  In connection therewith, IMPSAT 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) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
         in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to
         those investors material portions of the restricted number of
         IMPSAT shares issued in connection with the IMPSAT IPO; and

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

This action is being prosecuted by the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee
of In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS).

By Order, dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
appointed these firms to serve as the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (a) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP;

     (b) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP;

     (c) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP;

     (d) Sirota & Sirota LLP;

     (e) Stull, Stull & Brody; and

     (f) Wolf Haldenstein Freeman & Herz LLP

The Court has given the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee responsibility
for the prosecution of the IPO Securities Litigation.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 or visit this Website: www.milberg.com


LAFARGE CORPORATION: Court Certifies Factory Operations Particle Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay City Federal Court granted class certification to a suit filed by
Alpena, Michigan residents against cement manufacturer LaFarge
Corporation, for trespassing, nuisance and negligence relating to their
cement plant operations.

The suit alleges that particles from the cement factory settled on
their property, damaged their homes and plants causing them mental
anguish and "loss of enjoyment of their homes."

The plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of all owners of single-family
homes who had their property disturbed by the Company's pollution.

In his opinion, Lawson wrote: "Kiln dust from the plant is emitted into
the air, causing a bad odor and covering cars, houses and plants with a
white film, damaging paint and siding and killing rose bushes."

The ruling, however was not a total setback for the Company - while
Lawson certified the suit, he granted the Company's motion to dismiss
claims of trespassing, only allowing claims of nuisance and negligence.

A status conference on the suit is scheduled for Nov. 15.

The Maryland-based Corporation has owned and operated the cement plant
in since 1987. The one-square-mile factory and quarry, which turns
limestone into cement, employs about 400 workers.


METASOLV SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit In NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of MetaSolv Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MSLV) between November 17, 1999 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) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Jeffries & Company, Inc.,

     (4) James P. Janicki and

     (5) Glenn A. Etherington

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 November 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
5,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $19
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 Company 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

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


METRICOM INC.: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased Metricom, Inc. common stock between June 21, 1999
and July 2, 2001, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 and
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between June 21, 1999 and July 2, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain defendants, beginning
in June 1999, issued statements concerning the Company's business,
financial results and operations which failed to disclose or only
partially disclosed three material agreements with MCI WorldCom, Inc.

These material transactions were:

     (1) a Reseller Agreement, executed June 20, 1999 (initially
         disclosed to the public on November 5, 1999);

     (2) a Global Services Agreement, executed October 3, 2000, which
         required the Company to pay to WorldCom substantial
         "termination" fees, and

     (3) an Agreement whereby WorldCom was to supply selected
         telecommunications equipment, office equipment, and related
         office product to the Company.

Neither of the last two material agreements nor the creation of
substantial contingent liability were ever disclosed to the public.

In February 2000, The Company closed a secondary public offering
composed of 5 million shares of its common stock, at a price of $87 per
share.

Many of the material terms of the operant Worldcom agreement were not
revealed to investors prior to the offering, nor were corrective
disclosures made as new information relating to the agreements with
Worldcom became known.

Additionally, although the Company's business plan and marketing
strategy were known to contain flaws, certain defendants failed to
disclose that material fact to the public.

Additionally, certain defendants disseminated materially false and
misleading statements, which manipulated and artificially inflated the
Company's common stock price.

These knowingly false and misleading statements drove Company stock
from $11.06 per share near the beginning of the class period to as high
as $109.50 per share on January 28, 2000 just prior to the offering.

After dissipating substantially all of its cash and making a series of
shocking negative disclosures in the first half of the year, on July 2,
2001, the Company and its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for
bankruptcy relief.

Only then did it become apparent that the Company's entire business
model and marketing strategy had been flawed from the start. In the
bankruptcy filings, it was disclosed that contingent claims approached
almost $700 million with total debts exceeding $1 billion. The
Company's last pre-bankruptcy trade per share was for $1.82, a decline
exceeding 93% over the prior 12 months.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell, Merrick S. Rayle, or
Robert W. Rodriguez by Phone: (212) 608-1900 by E-mail:
sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: www.lovellstewart.com


NET PERCEPTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Suit Lodged In SD New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee for In re: Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed last week on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Net Perceptions, Inc. (NASDAQ: NETP) between April 22, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants Net Perceptions, certain of its
officers and its underwriters. The title of the case is Fox v. Net
Perceptions, Inc. et al (01-CV-9675).

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.

On or about April 22, 1999, Net Perceptions commenced an initial public
offering of 3.65 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $14 per share. In connection therewith, Net Perceptions 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:

     (1) 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 Net Perceptions IPO; and

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

This action is being prosecuted by the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee
of In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS).

By Order, dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
appointed these firms to serve as the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (i) Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP;

    (ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP;

   (iii) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP;

    (iv) Sirota & Sirota LLP;

     (v) Stull, Stull & Brody LLP; and

    (vi) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

The Court has given The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee responsibility
for the prosecution of the IPO Securities Litigation.

For further details, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP, New York through Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Thomas H. Burt, Esq.,
Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by
Phone: 800/575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit this
Website: www.whafh.com


NEXTCARD INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of NextCard, Inc.
(NASDAQ:NXCD) between March 30, 2000 and October 30, 2001, inclusive.

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

The complaint charges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements.

Specifically, the suit alleges that beginning in March 2001, the
Company claimed that its wholly owned banking division was "well-
capitalized" as that term is understood under regulations of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The Company also purposely mischaracterized its true loan loss levels,
in order to qualify for the most beneficial insurance treatment and
cost of funds, when in fact the company was experiencing ever
increasing loan defaults.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of these false and
misleading statements the price of Company securities were artificially
inflated throughout the class period.

Additionally, certain officers and directors sold over $10 million
worth of artificially inflated Company securities during the class
period.

The Company revealed on October 31, 2001, that:

     (1) its banking division was in fact "significantly
         undercapitalized";

     (2) it had failed to provide sufficient reserves for delinquent
         loans; and

     (3) it had inadequately characterized its true credit losses

The Company stock then collapsed -- wiping out 84% of market value in
just one day and causing plaintiff and the other members of the class
to suffer damages.

For further information, contact Fred Taylor Isquity, Thomas Burt,
Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail:
270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to
NextCard.


NEXTCARD INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In ND CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss commenced late last week a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of NextCard Inc. (NASDAQ:NXCD) publicly traded securities
during the period between March 30, 2000 and Oct. 30, 2001.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operations and prospects for 2000
and 2001. In fact, defendants knew NextCard's reserves were materially
under-funded and that as a result, its 2000 and 2001 projections and/or
results were false.

During the Class Period, taking advantage of the inflation in NextCard
stock, defendants Lent, Cai, Qureshey and Hashman sold almost $9
million worth of their own NextCard stock at artificially inflated
prices of as much as $10.89 per share.

Then, on October 31, 2001, it was revealed that, among other things,
defendants had concealed that during the Class Period:

     (1) due to the deteriorating quality of NextCard's portfolio, the
         Company would need to dramatically increase its reserves for
         loan losses in fiscal 2000 and Q1, Q2 and Q3 2001 and as a
         result its reported value of its loans for fiscal 2000 and Q1
         and Q2 2001 was overstated;

     (2) the Company had improperly recorded "credit losses" as "fraud
         losses" and as a result the Company's "securitization
         activities" during the Class Period did not qualify for "low
         level recourse treatment."

         Defendants knew that as a result, such would dramatically
         increase the Company bank division's risk weighted assets, and
         would decrease the Company's "risk based capital ratio" below
         federal banking guidelines - rendering the Company
         "significantly under capitalized";

     (3) because the Company's risk-based capital ratio had plummeted
         below acceptable levels, it had been technically subject to a
         Prompt Correction Action Order and thereby restricted from
         accepting or reviewing any brokened deposits;

     (4) as a result of the above, the Company's 2000 and 2001 results
         and projections were materially false and misleading.

These disclosures shocked the market, causing NextCard's stock to
decline to $0.84 per share before closing at $0.87 per share on October
31, 2001 on volume of more than 43 million shares, inflicting millions
of dollars of damage on plaintiff and the Class.

For more details, contact Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
William Lerach by Phone: 800/449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com


NORTHPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Sues In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee for In re: Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed on October 30, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of NorthPoint Communications Group, Inc. (OTC Board:
NPNTQ) between May 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants NorthPoint Communications
Group, Inc., 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.  

On or about May 5, 1999, NorthPoint commenced an initial public
offering of 15,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $24 per share.  In connection therewith, NorthPoint 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:

     (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 NorthPoint shares issued
         in connection with the NorthPoint IPO; and

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

This action is being prosecuted by the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee
of In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS).  

By Order, dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
appointed these firms to serve as the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (i) Berstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP;

    (ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP;

   (iii) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP;

    (iv) Sirota & Sirota LLP;

     (v) Stull, Stull & Brody; and

    (vi) Wolf Haldenstein Freeman & Herz LLP  

The Court has given The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee responsibility
for the prosecution of the IPO Securities Litigation.

For more information, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. 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 at info@sbclasslaw.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit For $12.3M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. (NASDAQNM: RCII) settled for $12.3 million the
class action suit filed by 4,600 female employees and some applicants
alleging gender discrimination.

Plaintiffs filed the suit in Kansas City, Missouri federal court on
behalf of women who worked or applied for jobs at the company between
April 19, 1998, and October 1, 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company:

     (1) eliminated jobs held by women;

     (2) imposed unreasonable weightlifting requirements;

     (3) unfairly disciplined female employees;

     (4) demoted female employees to clerical and cleaning duties; and

     (5) fired some female employees.

The Company admitted no liability in the settlement.

Company president Mitchell E. Fadel released a statement, saying "while
our track record in providing an indiscriminatory workplace is strong,
we believe the proposed settlement is in the best interests of Rent-A-
Center given the costs and uncertainty of litigation."

The company also agreed to develop policies to assure gender equity in
the workplace.

The settlement amount, subject to court approval, doesn't include
attorneys' fees, which will be awarded by the court, or costs to
administer the settlement process.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. operates and franchises more than 2,500 stores that
rent home electronics, furniture and other household items. Customers
can buy the products after making a number of payments.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued For Credit Card Confidentiality Policy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck and Co. faces a class action suit from two Company
credit-card holders in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging the retailer
sold confidential information about them to a marketing firm.

Plaintiffs Arin Bovay and Debra Wathen allege that the Company violated
the privacy of its credit-card holders and unjustly enriched itself at
their expense.

The Company allegedly sold personal and confidential information to
direct marketing firm Memberworks Inc., who has sold health and dental
discount programs to their customers in the past.

A Company spokeswoman refuted the allegations saying that it did not
breach its confidentiality policy because Memberworks was a licensee of
Sears and therefore a "member of the Sears family of businesses."

She also added that some of their customers are still in the
Memberworks health and dental programs, but the Company is no longer
marketing them to new customers.


SOUTH SHORE: Former Residents Sue For Mold and Mildew Problem, Damage
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight former residents of the South Shore Lakes Apartments have filed a
class action in the 405th district court in Galveston, Texas alleging
mold and mildew problems.

The suit alleges that toxic mold contaminated their furniture, clothing
and personal belongings and caused severe health problems for the
plaintiffs.

Counsel for the plaintiffs Kenneth T. Ward said the mold "has affected
(the plaintiffs) health and that these apartments are not presently a
safe place to live."

The suit says the plaintiffs moved into the apartments "at various
times in 1999 and 2000," and  "almost immediately, plaintiffs began to
notice problems associated with mold and mildew in their apartment(s)."

The lawsuit also stated "plaintiffs have had their apartments inspected
by two different specialists to determine the species of molds present
and to access indoor air quality."

The specialist who inspected the place found several species of mold:

     (1) stachybotrys,

     (2) aspergillius,

     (3) penicillium,

     (4) cladisporium and

     (5) cahetomium.


The suit alleges that the complex received many complaints about "mold,
mildew and fungus problems similar to plaintiffs" but neglected to
"warn tenants of the South Shore Lakes apartment complex of the
problems and of the existence of potential problems, and took no
effective steps by qualified personnel to cure the problem."

The plaintiffs moved to "alternate living quarters...and have incurred
additional expenses in renting alternate furniture and purchasing
additional clothing and personal items to temporarily replace those
items that have been contaminated."

South Shore Lakes Apartments and its corporate office Hettig Management
Corporation declined comment.


SPORT-HALEY: Dyer & Shuman Begins Securities Lawsuit In Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Shuman, LLP announced last week that it recently filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado on behalf of
purchasers of Sport-Haley, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPOR) common stock during the
period between September 4, 1996, and October 16, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Sport-Haley and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Sport-Haley
continually reported artificially inflated earnings via false and
misleading press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As a result, on October 16, 2000, the company announced that it would
be forced to restate its financial statements for the 1998 and 1999
fiscal years.

This disclosure prompted the NASDAQ to suspend trading of Sport-Haley
stock. It also prompted the SEC to commence an informal inquiry.

On November 6, 2000, the company announced the extent of its
restatements.

Specifically, defendants admitted that they had materially overstated
the company's earnings for the 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 fiscal years,
and that the company would restate its net income for the year ended
June 30, 1998, from $4.3 million to $2.5 million, and from $814,000 to
$147,000 for the year ended June 30, 1999.

When the NASDAQ finally resumed trading, the company's stock initially
lost 37% of its value. Moreover, after receiving documents from the
company and interviewing company employees, the SEC began a formal
investigation into possible violations of the federal securities laws.

For more information, contact: John M. Martin of Dyer & Shuman, LLP by
Phone: 800/711-6483 or 303/861-3003 or by E-mail:
jmartin@dyershuman.com


SULZER MEDICA: Appeals Court Reverses $783M Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the preliminary
approval given by U.S. District Judge Kathleen O'Malley to the proposed
class action settlement by Swiss orthopedic company Sulzer Medica.

The ruling paved the way for individual claims against the Company and
dashed the Company's hopes to settle the claims through a single $783
million settlement.

More than 1,600 lawsuits were filed last December against the Company
after it recalled thousands of hip and knee implants after patients who
were fitted with them suffered severe pain and slipping.

The Company later determined that oil residue on the hip and knee
implants caused the implants not to bond properly to the patients'
bones.  

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

The Company may now face hundreds of state court lawsuits and be forced
to seek bankruptcy protection if it's overwhelmed with individual
claims.

However, Stephan Rietiker, CEO of Sulzer Medica Ltd., says the company
remains confident a settlement will be reached over the company's
faulty hip implants.

He said, "This decision is not a surprise for us and does not mean that
we will change our strategy in any way.We will continue to oppose
individual legal actions with every means possible."

According to the Company's press release, negotiations with attorneys
for the patients are continuing independent of the court decision.


TAISHUN COUNTY: Chinese Court Awards Tunnel Workers $25 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese migrant workers who contracted the respiratory disease
silicosis, while digging a tunnel for a major expressway in China,
scored a huge class action settlement verdict last week, reported the
Xinhua News Agency.

A Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court in China's Zhejiang Province
awarded the class of 230 workers damages amounting to CNY208 million
(US$25 million).

Chief Judge Yu Wei held Taishun County Tunnel Engineering Co. and three
of its shareholders were held responsible for the silicosis the workers
developed after working on the expressway without the proper protective
gear.

The court found that from 1993 to 1996, the employers ordered the
workers to dig holes with pneumatic drills into rock that had a silicon
dioxide density of 97.6 percent.

According to the court, without respirators and other protective
equipment, this work environment forced the excavators to inhale large
amounts of silicon dioxide, causing their silicosis.

The case was filed in April.  Of the 230 class members, ten have
already died of silicosis, which was diagnosed among the tunnel workers
in 1998.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Witness Testifies To Companies' Research Efforts
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco companies struggled for more than 30 years to design a safer
cigarette, enduring many failures, a former researcher asserted as
trial in landmark West Virginia smokers' class action continues.

Jerry Whidby, part-time consultant to tobacco giant Philip Morris,
testified that scientists at the Company continue those efforts today,
achieving some success but meeting many "expensive" failures.

Whidby was the latest witness to testify for the defense in the suit,
which was filed by 250,000 smokers against four big tobacco companies,
namely RJ Reynolds, Brown and Williamson, Lorillard and Philip Morris.

The suit alleges that the Companies showed a "wanton and willful"
disregard for the public's health by designing a "defective product"
and ignoring mounting evidence that smoking causes disease.

The smokers want the companies to pay for an unprecedented medical
monitoring program that reportedly could detect smoking related
diseases like lung cancer and emphysema earlier.

The defendants have reiterated that they have never wavered in their
efforts to produce a "risk-free" cigarette, and have tried to introduce
products that were rejected by consumers.

Whidby says that the development of technology hasn't always kept pace
with researchers' ideas, saying: "Science is built upon other science.
It takes time. It takes people."

The companies have contended that cigarettes were an inherently risky
product and the best way for smokers to avoid disease and prolong their
lives is to quit smoking.


TUT SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Suit Filed In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in In re: Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed on October 30, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Tut Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: TUTS) between January 29,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants Tut Systems, Inc., 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.  

On or about January 29, 1999, Tut commenced an initial public offering
of 2,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $18
per share.  In connection therewith, Tut 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:

     (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 Tut shares issued in
         connection with the Tut IPO; and

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

This action is being prosecuted by the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee
of In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS).  

By Order, dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
appointed these firms to serve as the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (i) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP;

    (ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP;

   (iii) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP;

    (iv) Sirota & Sirota LLP;

     (v) Stull, Stull & Brody; and

    (vi) Wolf Haldenstein Freeman & Herz LLP  

The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is responsible for the prosecution
of the IPO Securities Litigation.

For further information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through
Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. 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


                              *********


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  * * *