CAR_Public/011108.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Thursday, November 8, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 219


                           Headlines


ACCELR8 TECHNOLOGY: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in Colorado
ALLAIRE CORPORATION: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in MA
AMAZON.COM: Disputes Charges In Multiple Securities Suits in W.D. WA
APPLE COMPUTER: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
ARKANSAS: Judge Refuses To Interfere In State Child Support System

CALHOUN COUNTY: 19 Inmates Sue Officials For Discrimination, Brutality
CALIFORNIA:Civil Rights Groups Sue Governor Over Racial Profiling Data
CARESCIENCE INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA
CITRIX SYSTEMS: FL Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
COBALT GROUP: Discusses Possible Settlement In Seattle Securities Suit

CONSECO FINANCE: Appeals Court Reverses MN Securities Suits' Dismissal
DENNY'S RESTAURANT: Settles CA Overtime Wage Suit For $4 Million
DICE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GATEWAY INC.: Slapped With Nine CA Suits For Securities Violations
GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Lionel Glancy Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit

HERCULES INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Alleged Antitrust Violations in CA
INSURANCE COMPANIES: Accused of Conspiring With Asbestos Firms in Suit
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MAXUM LLC: Inks Memorandum To Settle Delaware Securities Suit For $8M
MONY GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Court's Dismissal of Insurance Suit

NETRATINGS INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NY
NEW JERSEY: Marlton Lake Considers Suit To Close Berlin Borough Well
NEXTCARD INC.: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
NUCLEAR TESTING: Marshall Islanders Sue Over Nuclear Testing Effects
OKLAHOMA: Couple Sues Mining Companies For Tar Creek Lead Poisoning

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PENNSYLVANIA: Student Claims School Bus Recordings Violated Privacy
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Cauley Geller Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit
STATE FARM: IL Suit Seeks Lost Value Reimbursement For Damaged Cars
TENFOLD CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securites Suit in NY

UNITED PARCEL: Trial In Deaf Workers' Rights Suit Set For June 2002
WHITAKER SCHOOL: Parents, Students Sue School System Over Air Quality
ZIMBABWE: New York Court Orders Mugabe's Party To Pay $100 Million


                           *********


ACCELR8 TECHNOLOGY: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accelr8 Technology Corporation faces multiple securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
for alleged federal securities act violations.

Five of the suits commenced in mid-2000 and named as defendants:

     (1) Accelr8 Technology Corporation,

     (2) Thomas V. Geimer,

     (3) Harry J. Fleury,

     (4) David C. Wilhelm,

     (5) A. Alexander Arnold III, and

     (6) James Godkin

The Court later ordered these actions consolidated and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a consolidated amended suit.

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

In May 2000, an alleged Company shareholder filed a derivative action
in the same court on behalf of the Company, against:

     (i) Thomas V. Geimer,

    (ii) A. Alexander Arnold III and

   (iii) David C.Wilhelm

The parties in the above suit have reached an agreement under which the
Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice upon an exchange of
releases, with no payments to be made by the Defendants.

The agreement is subject to court approval, and the Company cannot
guarantee at present there can be no guaranty that it will be approved.


ALLAIRE CORPORATION: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Macromedia Inc. subsidiary Allaire Corporation faces several securities
class actions in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for alleged federal securities law violations.

The suits, filed on behalf of those who purchased Company stock between
January 26, 2000, and September 18, 2000, names as defendants:

     (1) Allaire Corporation,

     (2) Joseph J. Allaire,

     (3) Jeremy Allaire,

     (4) David A. Gerth and

     (5) David J. Orfao

The suits allege the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suits were later ordered consolidated.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit and in September
2001, the court ruled that the complaint did not comply with the
pleading standards imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

The Court, however, permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
in accordance with specific requirements imposed by the Court.

The Company also faces another class action suit filed in April 2001 in
the same court, after it was merged into Macromedia, Inc.

The suit charges the above defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws as well as additional claims for common law fraud and
negligent misrepresentation.

Last May, the court consolidated the suits for purposes of briefing and
oral argument on the defendants' motions to dismiss.

In September 2001, the court consolidated the two actions and permitted
the plaintiff in second action to file an amended complaint subject to
the same requirements imposed in the first action.

The Company said that it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation at this time.


AMAZON.COM: Disputes Charges In Multiple Securities Suits in W.D. WA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet retailer Amazon.com vehemently denied allegations in the
several securities suit filed against them in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The suits similarly charge the Company and certain of its top officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The suits allege 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 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.

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

The Company says that an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these
matters could materially affect the Company's business or financial
position.


APPLE COMPUTER: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Apple Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) common
stock during the period between July 19, 2000 and September 28, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and its CEO, Steve Jobs.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in July 2000, the Company
introduced its new Power Mac G4 Dual Processor, G4 Cube and iMac
personal computers, representing that they were exceptionally powerful,
fast and attractive, coming with exceptionally attractive designs and
containing 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 its achieving strong revenue
and earnings per share (EPS) growth in its 4th Quarter 2000 and 2001
results.

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

Suddenly, just 20-25 trading days later, the Company shocked investors
by revealing a huge 4th Quarter 2000 revenue and EPS shortfall due to:

     (1) very poor sales to its education (K- 12) market; and

     (2) poor consumer acceptance of its new personal computer products
         (some of which had been late to market, had defects and lacked
         features which were essential for market success).

This resulted in the accumulation of excessive inventories of finished
goods in the Company's distribution channel and the Company having to
cancel component part orders and, thereby, incur financial penalties.

As rumors of the Company's troubles circulated prior to and then
following its shocking disclosure, Company stock collapsed from $61-
3/64 to $25- 3/8, continuing to fall to as low as $17 and then to $13-
5/8, as investors absorbed the full impact of these shocking
revelations.

The stock decline wiped out over $10 billion of the Company's market
capitalization in just a few days.

For further details, 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 (toll-free) by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com


ARKANSAS: Judge Refuses To Interfere In State Child Support System
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge James Moody denied the request of plaintiff
parents to order immediate changes to the state system that handles
child-support checks.   

Nine parents filed the suit against the state of Arkansas when their
child-support checks were delayed for many weeks.

Judge Moody allowed the case to go forward, according to an Associated
Press report, and set the case for trial in July or August of 2002.

At the hearing, the plaintiffs related the hardships that occurred when
thousands of child-support checks were delayed after state officials
took on about 50,000 more support cases and switched to a new computer
system.

Nonetheless, Judge Moody denied the parents' request for a preliminary
injunction ordering the state Office of Child Enforcement to follow
federal regulations for distributing the checks.  

The plaintiffs also asked the judge to order the state to give parents
an adequate monthly accounting of how the state manages their money.

In his ruling, Judge Moody said, "I'm certainly not insensitive to
these mothers who testified.  They need money to support their
children. We've all been frustrated by bureaucracy."

However, he noted that the child-support office is attempting to
address the mothers' needs and has made some substantial progress.   

"It's a sophisticated system, and it has some problems," he said, "for
me to interfere at this point might make it worse."

Plaintiffs' attorney Theresa Caldwell said that she was disappointed
the injunction was denied but heartened that the state's motion to
dismiss was turned away by Judge Moody.  

Caldwell said that the denial of a temporary injunction "doesn't say
you're not going to win your case" and said she will seek class-action
status for the lawsuit.

In the days ahead, Caldwell continued, she hopes to explore settlement
options with the state.  "That's one of the things we want to look into
before we gear up and spend a lot of time and money."  

Dan McDonald, administrator for the state's child support office,
testified at the hearing that he knew the delays in sending out checks
created hardships, but that the state is following the federally
mandated rules and has informed parents about how it is managing their
money.

McDonald explained that when the office took on the 50,000 additional
cases from the counties, as mandated by the federal government, and
implemented a new computer system, the changes caused weeks of delays
in the distribution of checks.   

McDonald further testified that the state now disburses checks in less
than the two days required by the federal government once officials
have sufficient evidence to match payments with recipients.

Clark Lee Shaw of Nashville, Tennessee, another lawyer for the
plaintiffs, disputed some of McDonald's contentions, by saying the
state is illegally withholding support checks to recover losses when a
check from a non-custodial parent bounces.

He also asserted that the state is not giving proper notice to
recipients of their rights in disputed cases.


CALHOUN COUNTY: 19 Inmates Sue Officials For Discrimination, Brutality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nineteen inmates of the Calhoun County Correctional Center in Michigan
filed a class action suit against county sheriff Stephen Byam and other
county officials alleging racial discrimination and police brutality.

The inmates filed the suit in July charging the correctional officials
with:

     (1) ethnic intimidation;

     (2) placing inmates in long-term solitary confinement without a
         hearing; and

     (3) denying inmates use of the jail's law library

Lead plaintiff, Robert C. Mitchell III, a black anti-police brutality
activist and a trained paralegal, prepared the suit while awaiting
trial for the alleged assault of a white woman, Deborah Sparks Gordon,
in July 2000.

JoNina Abron, acting chair of the Southwest Michigan Coalition against
Racism and Police Brutality, maintains that Mitchell was framed by
government officials in retaliation for his work organizing against
police brutality and racism in Battle Creek and Calhoun County.

Abron recently wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, asking
them to investigate alleged systematic racial discrimination against
non-white inmates at the jail.

In her two-page letter, Abron accuses officials of denying inmates
proper medical care and violating their legal rights as pre-trial
detainees and their basic constitutional rights.

Abron's letter says that because Mitchell helped other prisoners at the
jail, "he has been subjected to a systematic campaign of harassment,
including beatings, racial slurs, solitary confinement and other
disciplinary punishment."

She further alleges that since the lawsuit was filed, the mistreatment
of Mitchell has "grown deadly," and said officials have refused to
hospitalize Mitchell, who has suffered a series of heart attacks and
strokes since August.

She states "The officials apparently want to let Mr. Mitchell die from
lack of medical care. This is both immoral and criminal."

The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to rule
on the suit soon.


CALIFORNIA:Civil Rights Groups Sue Governor Over Racial Profiling Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A coalition of civil rights groups filed a state lawsuit recently, in
the 1st District Court of Appeal, against Governor Gray Davis, the Los
Angeles Times recently reported.

The suit charges that the Governor exceeded his veto authority by
striking key racial data collection requirements from this year's
budget.

In an effort to "shine a light" on racial profiling, the state Assembly
set aside $3 million for police agencies to collect five specific types
of traffic stop information:  

     (1) motorists' race and ethnicity;

     (2) the reason for the stop;

     (3) whether a search was carried out;

     (4) whether contraband was found during a search; and

     (5) whether an arrest or citation took place

Governor Davis deleted the majority of the racial data collection
requirements except the race and ethnicity criteria and then subtracted
$1,000 -- his estimation of the cost collecting that data would have
imposed.

Civil rights attorney Michelle Alexander said "Just looking at the race
of the motorists stopped tells you nothing about what happened after
the stop," and nothing about whether systematic racial profiling is
occurring.  

Although the state Constitution allows the governor to eliminate
specific budget allocations, the ACLU contends Governor Davis exceeded
his powers by killing provisions that had no funds attached to them.

In his official veto message, the governor said he believed it was
"more appropriate for local law enforcement agencies to decide if the
additional data" should be collected.  

Sixty of California's 433 law enforcement agencies collect some kind of
racial data voluntarily.  Racial data collection systems are in place
at the California Highway Patrol, the San Diego Police Department and
the Los Angeles Police Department under a federal consent decree.  

"The problem is, there's no uniformity," said Alice Huffman, president
of the California National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People.  "Right now we have all kinds of data collection going on.But
when you try to analyze it, the data doesn't match and we're at a loss
to come out with recommendations and remedies."

State Senator John Burton (D-San Francisco) said he also doubts that
Governor Davis acted legally.  "My feeling is that you take all or
nothing.  You can't just. eliminate 'Program A' and keep the money for
something else."

The Governor's critics say he has caved into the powerful police lobby
that has fought mandatory racial data collection and given him
political contributions of more than $100,000 over the last three
years.

The Governor and his officials have not commented on the issue.


CARESCIENCE INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of CareScience Inc. (Nasdaq:CARE)
common stock during the period between June 29, 2000 and Nov. 1, 2000,
inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Phone: (888) 551-9944 (toll-free) by E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com


CITRIX SYSTEMS: FL Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated shareholder class action
against Citrix Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:CTXS) and certain of its officers.

In June 2000, several securities class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
October 20, 1999 to June 9, 2000.

These actions generally alleged that, during the class period, the
defendants made misstatements to the investing public about the
Company's financial condition and prospects.

The court later ordered these suits consolidated.

The Company's Senior Vice President of Operations, John Cunningham,
hailed the decision, saying, "The court order to dismiss supports our
long-standing position that the lawsuits were groundless and without
merit."


COBALT GROUP: Discusses Possible Settlement In Seattle Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cobalt Group entered preliminary settlement discussions for the
securities class action opposing its merger with Cobalt Acquisition
Corporation, a subsidiary of Warburg Pincus Equity Partners LP.

The Company also reset its special stockholders meeting to consider the
merger from October 30,2001 to November 13, 2001.

The suit arose from three suits commenced in July 2001, which was later
consolidated by the Court.

The consolidated suit names as defendants:

     (1) Warburg Pincus Equity Partners LP,

     (2) John W.P. Holt,

     (3) Mark T. Koulogeorge,

     (4) Geoffrey T. Barker,

     (5) J.D. Power, III,

     (6) Ernest H. Pomerantz,

     (7) Joseph P. Landy,

     (8) Howard A. Tullman and

     (9) the Company.

The plaintiffs' amended and consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duty, including allegations:

     (i) that the proposed merger consideration is grossly unfair and
         inadequate,

    (ii) that the defendants engaged in unfair dealing by allegedly
         timing the merger proposal to take advantage of the
         allegedly depressed market value of Cobalt's common stock,
         
   (iii) that the defendants allegedly timed the announcement of the
         proposed transaction to place an artificial lid on the market
         price of Cobalt's common stock,

    (iv) that the defendants have access to internal financial
         information about Cobalt to which the plaintiffs are not privy
         and

     (v) that the continuing shareholders allegedly have conflicts of
         interest and as a result, allegedly acted to better their own
         interests at the expense of the unaffiliated shareholders.

The suit further alleged breach of duty of candor, including
allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose all of
the material factors relating to the proposed merger and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company cannot ensure that a settlement will be reached but has
repeatedly expressed confidence that the suit will not have a
materially adverse effect on its financial position or operations.


CONSECO FINANCE: Appeals Court Reverses MN Securities Suits' Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of several
securities suits against Conseco Finance, and remanded the cases to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suits were filed on behalf of persons or entities that purchased
the Company's common stock or stock options from February 1995 to
January 1998 against the Company and some of its current and former
officers and directors.

The lawsuits were consolidated into two complaints, one relating to
purchasers of the Company's common stock and the other relating to
traders in options for the Company's common stock.

The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The defendants allegedly issued false and misleading statements about
the Company's current state and future prospects, particularly about
prepayment assumptions and performance of some of its loan portfolios.

The Company moved to dismiss these lawsuits. The dismissal was granted
with prejudice by the Minnesota federal court in August 1999.

The plaintiffs promptly appealed the decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit.


DENNY'S RESTAURANT: Settles CA Overtime Wage Suit For $4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denny's Restaurant settled for $4 million the class action suit filed
by its employees in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California.

One current and two former managers of the restaurant filed the suit,
on behalf of individuals who were employed as managers of Denny's in
California between September 2,1994 and July 21,2000.

The suit alleges the Company required its managers to work more than
50% of their time performing non-management related tasks, thus
entitling them to overtime compensation.

Denny's contended that it properly classifies its managers as salaried
employees, thereby exempting them from the payment of overtime
compensation.

During the third quarter of 2000, the Company, while continuing to deny
liability, elected to resolve the case to avoid the expense of
continued litigation and the risk of loss.

The settlement was approved by the court in October 2000 and paid in
the first quarter of 2001.

However, Denny's faces a similar class action suit filed by four former
managers of the Company in Superior Court for King County, Washington.

The action, was originally filed in May 2000, on behalf of all
managers and general managers who worked for Denny's in Washington
since January 1, 1997.

The suit alleges that managers at Denny's are not exempt "executive"
employees because they supposedly spend most of their time on non-
exempt tasks, thus entitling them to overtime compensation.

Denny's again contends that it properly classifies its managers as
salaried employees, thereby exempting them from the payment of overtime
compensation.


DICE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Dice, Inc. (NASDAQ: DICE)
between November 10, 1998 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) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,

     (2) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (3) Volpe Brown Whelan & Co., LLC,

     (4) Wit Capital Corporation,

     (5) Jack D. Hidary,

     (6) Irene Math,

     (7) Murray Hidary,

     (8) Cary Davis,

     (9) Henry Kressel, and

    (10) Nova Spivack

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 November 1998, Dice commenced an initial public offering of
2,100,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $14
per share.

In May 1999, the Company also commenced a secondary public offering of
1,300,000 of shares of common stock at an offering price of $37 per
share.

Dice filed registration statements with the SEC in connection with the
offerings, each of which incorporated a prospectus.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectuses were materially
false and misleading because each 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 shares issued in
         connection with the offerings; and

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

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


GATEWAY INC.: Slapped With Nine CA Suits For Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer marketer Gateway, Inc. faces nine class action suits in
California federal and state court alleging federal securities laws
violations.

Seven of the suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California against the Company, one of its
former officers, and one director.

The complaints allege that the defendants misrepresented Gateway's
financial performance in securities filings and in statements to the
public, and purport to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of
Company stock between April 14, 2000 and February 28, 2001.

The court ordered the suits consolidated in December 2000 and
subsequently, the plaintiffs a consolidated complaint in July 2001.

The defendants promptly asked the court to dismiss the suit. The motion
is scheduled for hearing on January 14, 2002.

Another shareholder derivative suit was commenced in March 2001 by
Bruce Eubank against Gateway's Board of Directors and two of its former
officers in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego.

The suit alleges among other things that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company and wasted corporate assets.

On May 15, 2001, Jacob Scheinhartz filed a similar derivative suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Gateway has filed motions seeking dismissal of the suits. Both of these
derivative lawsuits have been voluntarily stayed pending motions to
dismiss the consolidated federal class actions.


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Lionel Glancy Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (NASDAQ:GENI)
securities between December 21, 1999 and September 25, 2001, inclusive.

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

The suit charges the defendants with violations of federal securities
laws.

Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants' material
omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements caused the Company'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, California 90067, by Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 (toll-free) or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.


HERCULES INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Alleged Antitrust Violations in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical specialties maker Hercules International faces several class
action suits along with other chemical companies in California federal
and state courts alleging violations of antitrust laws.

The suits, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, arose following published reports of a Los Angeles
federal grand jury investigation of the carbon fiber and carbon prepreg
industries.

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of carbon fiber and carbon
pre-preg in the United States (excluding the government) from the named
defendants from January 1, 1993 through January 31, 1999.

The suits alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act for alleged price fixing.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated in September 1999, with all
related cases ordered dismissed.

In addition to the above cases, four class action suits were filed
against Hercules and other chemical companies in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County on behalf of indirect purchasers of
carbon fiber.

These actions allege violations of the California Business and
Professions Code relating to alleged price fixing of carbon fiber and
unfair competition.

Hercules has vehemently denied the suits' allegations.


INSURANCE COMPANIES: Accused of Conspiring With Asbestos Firms in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A dozen workers, or their estates, recently filed a class action suit
in Berkeley County Circuit Court, against several insurance companies
related to the asbestos industry.

The suit alleges that the Companies conspired with asbestos companies
to conceal the lethal risks of the fire-resistant material and claiming
that the plaintiff workers became "sickened" by asbestos exposure,
according to a recent report in the Charleston Gazette.

The suit names as defendants 14 insurance companies, among them Aetna,
Travelers and Commercial Union and contends:

     (1) that the asbestos industry's insurers have known about the
         harms of asbestos for decades;

     (2) that the insurance companies joined with the asbestos makers
         to fight claims filed by allegedly injured workers; and

     (3) that in this "secret conspiracy," the insurers agreed to
         "intentionally misrepresent and suppress relevant information
         regarding the knowledge of health hazards of asbestos
         exposure," thereby allowing both to allege that they did not
         know about the health risks of asbestos until the mid-1960s.

Further, the lawsuit invokes state laws that require insurers to
negotiate claims in "good faith" and bar "unfair trade practices."

The suit asserts that the insurers employed "evasive" and "misleading"
tactics when called upon to produce evidence in relation to the claims.

Travelers and Commercial Union "have admitted that documents and
information were intentionally destroyed, concealed and hidden from
plaintiffs and the courts," the lawsuit says.

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


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Loudcloud, Inc. (Nasdaq:LDCL) common stock
issued pursuant to the March 8, 2001 prospectus.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus used by defendants to sell
$150 million worth of Loudcloud's stock was false and misleading
because, among other things, it failed to disclose:

     (1) the Company's plan to substantially reduce its work force and
         to restructure immediately following the offering;

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

     (3) that a major contract to which one of the underwriters was a
         party was being terminated; and

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

As the truth about the Company and its operations reached the market,
the price of shares fell to less than $2 per share, inflicting over
$100 million in damages upon plaintiff and the Class.

For further details, 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 (toll-free) by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com


MAXUM LLC: Inks Memorandum To Settle Delaware Securities Suit For $8M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxum LLC has entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle for
$8 million a securities class action pending in the Delaware Chancery
Court.

The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and of partnership
agreement in connection with the partnership's sale of its second
mortgage loan to Harborista Associates L.P. and the marketing of Harbor
Plaza, an office building that secured the Harborista loan.

The memorandum of understanding:

     (1) provides for an $8 million payment by the defendants to the
         partnership; and

     (2) requires that the partnership distribute to its partners the
         $8 million payment, less fees and expenses awarded by the
         court to plaintiff's counsel (which amount is not
         expected to exceed 20% of the settlement amount), along with
         $1 million of the partnership's cash reserves.

The MOU is subject to many conditions including:

     (i) execution of a definitive settlement agreement;

    (ii) completion of discovery by plaintiffs; and

   (iii) court approval of the settlement following notice to limited
         partners.

Discovery is currently ongoing and it is anticipated that discovery
will conclude prior to the end of 2001.

The Company has disclosed that they cannot give assurance yet that the
settlement will be consummated on the terms currently contemplated or
that the settlement will be consummated at all.


MONY GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Court's Dismissal of Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action suit against insurance provider The MONY
Group, Inc. appealed the New York Supreme Court's dismissal of the suit
last April.

Doctor Calvin Chatlos filed the suit in November 1999 in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
following defendants:

     (1) The MONY Life Insurance Company,

     (2) The MONY Group Inc., and

     (3) Neil D. Levin, Superintendent, New York Department of
         Insurance

The suit was filed on behalf of all individuals who had an ownership
interest in one or more in-force life insurance policies issued by
MONY Life Insurance Company as of November 16, 1998.

The suit alleged that:

     (i) Neil D. Levin violated Section 7312 of the New York Insurance
         Law by approving the Company's plan of de-mutualization, which
         Plaintiffs claim was not fair and adequate, primarily because
         it allegedly failed to provide for sufficient assets for the
         mechanism established under the plan to preserve reasonable
         policyholder dividend expectations of the closed block; and

    (ii) the Company violated Section 7312 by failing to develop and
         submit to the superintendent a plan of de-mutualization that
         was fair and adequate.

The plaintiffs sought equitable relief in the form of an order vacating
and/or modifying the Superintendent's order approving the plan of de-
mutualization and/or directing the Superintendent to order us to
increase the assets in the closed block, as well as unspecified
monetary damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit in early 2000, but filed
a new action in March 2000 in the New York State Supreme Court bearing
the same caption and naming the same defendants as the previously filed
federal action.

The state court complaint differed from the complaint previously filed
in federal court in two primary respects:

     (a) it no longer asserted claim for damages against the
         superintendent, nor sought entry of an order vacating or
         modifying the superintendent's decision or requiring the
         superintendent to direct the Company to place additional
         assets into the closed block. Rather, the suit sought an
         accounting and an order from the Court directing the Company
         to transfer additional assets to the closed block.

     (b) it contained claims for breach of contract and fiduciary duty,
         as well as new allegations regarding the adequacy of the
         disclosures contained in the Policyholder Information Booklet
         distributed to policyholders soliciting their approval of the
         plan of demutualization (which plaintiffs claim violated both
         the New York Insurance Law and the Company's fiduciary
         duties).

The plaintiffs' appeal is pending in the New York Appellate Division.


NETRATINGS INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of NetRatings, Inc.
(NASDAQ:NTRT) between December 9, 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 December 1999, NetRatings commenced an initial public offering of
4,000,000 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 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

     (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


NEW JERSEY: Marlton Lake Considers Suit To Close Berlin Borough Well
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Marlton Lakes, New Jersey residents are considering a class action suit
against the Berlin Borough municipal council for defying the state's
directive to close "Well No. 12."

The well, located in Camden County in Berlin, was drawing down
groundwater in the Marlton Lakes section of Evesham causing a local
tributary of the Rancocas Creek, known locally as the Kettle Run, to
run dry in June 2000.

After state-mandated tests, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) asked the borough to close the well because it was
impacting the Kettle Run and the protected swamp pink plant that grows
in the area.

The borough agreed to discontinue use of the well and look for
alternative sources last August but Marlton Lake residents noticed the
Kettle Run was again beginning to run dry starting three weeks ago.

The DEP confirmed that the well was turned on again and said that
Borough officials did not notify them that they had turned the well on.


On Friday, the DEP confirmed that the well had been turned on. Borough
officials never notified the DEP that they had turned on the well. At
the time it learned the well was operating again, the DEP was waiting
for Berlin's proposal for alternative water sources.

In exchange for turning off the well, the DEP allowed Berlin to exceed
its allocation from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) aquifer through
the end of the year in exchange while a "permanent solution" is sought.

The department was waiting for the borough's proposal when the well was
suddenly turned on.

DEP Commissioner Robert C. Shinn Jr. directed the borough to
"discontinue use of Well No. 12" and said that failure to abide by this
directive could result in the revocation of their water permit.

As of yesterday, the borough had not responded to the DEP's letter, DEP
spokeswoman Rachel Hamilton said.

Yesterday borough engineer, Chris Noll, said he could not comment on
the well situation because the town has been threatened with lawsuits
over the matter. Borough officials met last night to discuss the well.


NEXTCARD INC.: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo commenced a securities
class action against NextCard, Inc. (NASDAQ:NXCD) and several of its
top officers in the US District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The suit was filed on behalf of all investors who bought NextCard stock
between March 30, 2000 and October 30, 2001.

The complaint says that the defendants disseminated false and
misleading information about its capitalization in its filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the 1999 and 2000 fiscal years
and for part of 2001.

The misleading statements concerned the company's wholly owned
subsidiary, NextBank, and its classification under federal banking
guidelines.

Though the company repeatedly described NextBank in SEC filings as
"well capitalized" during the class period, it was in fact
"significantly undercapitalized."

Nextcard maintained this false "well capitalized" status by improperly
classifying credit losses as fraud losses.

In the third quarter of 2001, federal regulators put an abrupt halt to
these misleading practices, forcing the company to reclassify its fraud
losses as credit losses and to increase its allowances for loan losses.

Once the credit losses were properly categorized, NextBank became
"significantly undercapitalized" -- a full $140 million below the level
required for "well capitalized" status.

On October 31, 2001, the Company revealed that it was unable to provide
the needed capital to NextBank and could no longer operate on its own.

Stunned investors watched as the company's stock plummeted from a
closing price of $5.35 per share on October 30 to a closing price of
$0.87 the next day.

The complaint also alleges that one of the individual defendants,
Nextcard co-founder Jeremy R. Lent, sold $7.5 million worth of stock in
illegal insider trades, along with an additional $8.2 million in
indirect stock held by the Lent Family Trust.

For more information, contact Alicia Duff or Jeffrey C. Block by Mail:
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-
mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com.



NUCLEAR TESTING: Marshall Islanders Sue Over Nuclear Testing Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rongelap Islanders filed a class action suit in the Nuclear Claims
Tribunal, a panel of judges in the Marshall Islands capital of Majuro,
seeking damages from U.S. nuclear testing in the 1950s, according to a
recent report by Agence France-Presse.

The Tribunal is one arm of a package amounting to $270 million that the
United States provided as compensation for the health and environment
damage caused by its 67 nuclear tests.

The islanders told the Tribunal of the hardships they suffered, after
the Islanders' atoll was engulfed in radioactive fallout from the 15
megaton "Bravo" hydrogen bomb test on Bikini, describing illnesses such
as cancer, miscarriages, severe radiation poisoning, vomiting , skin
burns and hair losses.

Although the United States disputed their claims at the time,
subsequent independent scientific studies have confirmed that the atoll
needed a nuclear cleanup to make it safe for habitation.  

The U.S. government has provided funding to launch rehabilitation work
on one of Rongelap Atoll's more than 60 islands.  

Rongelap expects to be awarded compensation running into hundreds of
millions of dollars.

Rongelap Islanders have been living in exile since 1985, when they
moved to avoid further exposure to the still radioactive environment.

Traditional Chief, Michael Kabua, said that when people in the Marshall
Islands lost their homeland they were "faced with problems that affect
their human rights, freedoms and traditions."

The Tribunal is not expected to issue a ruling until early next year.


OKLAHOMA: Couple Sues Mining Companies For Tar Creek Lead Poisoning
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An Oklahoma couple filed a class action suit against eight mining
companies in the Ottawa County District Court for allegedly concealing
research on lead poisoning in the Tar Creek area.

Keith and Michelle Herd filed the suit against the companies, claiming
the delay in cleaning up lead-contaminated soil has caused severe
learning disabilities in their 9-year-old son, Trenton.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) RJJ, Inc., listed as an Oklahoma company;

     (2) Asarco Inc.;

     (3) Blue Tee Corporation;

     (4) Goldfields Mining Corporation;

     (5) NL Industries, Inc.,

     (6) Childress Royalty Company,

     (7) The Doe Run Corporation,

     (8) Ore and Mineral Recovery

Tar Creek is a top hazardous waste site, classified by the federal
Environment Protection Agency as a "Superfund site".

The site, which encompasses the 40-mile area of Picher, Cardin, Quapaw,
Commerce and North Miami, was mined for zinc and lead and consisted of
300 miles of tunnels from the late 1880s to 1960.

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health on Tar Creek residents
shows high lead levels, arsenic and other metals that were collected
from hair samples of 49 residents, ranging from children to middle-aged
adults.

Exposure to lead can cause severe behavior and learning disabilities,
including acute psychosis, muscle weakness and tremors that mimic
Parkinson's Disease.

Lead exposure also can cause memory loss, sexual problems, irritability
and other health problems. It is especially damaging to children
younger than 3.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants hid their research data on lead
poisoning and "attempted to thwart or improperly influence legitimate
scientific research regarding the cause of lead poison in Ottawa County
as well as the adverse heath effects associated."

Bradford Barron said the suit was the first action involving lead
contamination from the Tar Creek area.

He further revealed that Ore and Mineral Recovery and RJJ were not
directly involved in any mining, but both companies profited from the
sale of chat piles (durable lead mining waste) from their land.

The other six mining companies listed as defendants haven't mined in
the area for several years.

The defendants could not be reached for comment. No telephone numbers
or addresses could be found for these companies.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP filed a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Openwave Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ: OPWV) between June 10, 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) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Hambrecht & Quist, LLC,

     (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,

     (5) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (6) Banc of America Securities, LLC,

     (7) Alain Rossman,

     (8) Alan Black,

     (9) Charles Parrish,

    (10) Andrew Laursen, and

    (11) Malcolm Bird

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 June 1999, Openwave commenced an initial public offering of
4,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $16
per share.

In November, 1999, the Company also commenced a secondary public
offering of 6,600,000 of Company shares of common stock at an offering
price of $135 per share.

Openwave filed registration statements with the SEC in connection with
the offerings, each of which incorporated a prospectus.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectuses were materially
false and misleading because each failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

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

    (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby they agreed to allocate shares to those customers in
         the offerings 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: OPWV@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Student Claims School Bus Recordings Violated Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A former Berks County, Pennsylvania, student has filed a lawsuit in
Berks County Court against theTwin Valley school district, charging
that her privacy was violated when an audio-equipped school bus camera
recorded her conversations, according to a recent Associated Press
report.

Morgan Keppley, 20, of Robeson Township, is seeking more than $50,000
in damages and requests class-action status for the lawsuit in order to
represent all students in the Twin Valley school district who rode
school buses carrying audio-equipped school bus cameras.  

The lawsuit claims that Twin Valley used the bus surveillance cameras
to record actions and conversations of students, including Keppley's.

"People don't realize what has happened to them," said Keppley's
attorney, Simon Grill of Reading, Pennsylvania.  "Now we are going to
let people know what's going on."

The lawsuit does not reveal the nature of Keppley's recorded
conversation, and Grill declined to discuss the matter.  It is unclear
whether the students had been officially notified of the device's
presence, or that it was equipped to record audio.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the school district, school
board members and two bus companies that serve the district:  Eschelman
Transportation Inc. of Mohnton and George Krapf Jr. & Sons of
Glenmoore.

Kelly McBride, Twin Valley School District spokeswoman, said the
district does not comment on lawsuits.  Blake Krapf, co-owner of George
Krapf Jr. & Sons, one of the bus companies, also declined to comment.

Greg Eschelman of Eschelman Transportation said the district is in
charge of the camera videotapes, which also capture audio.  Eschelman
defended the cameras' function, saying they enhance safety and monitor
pupil and driver conduct.

Grill contended that the recordings violated the U.S. Constitution's
Fourth Amendment guarantees against illegal search and seizure.  "We
aren't saying anything about the video," Grill said.  "We are
contesting the audio.  That falls under the wiretapping and
surveillance control act."


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

The suit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, charges the Company 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 Providian's operations and prospects for 2nd and
3rd Quarters of 2001.

In late June 2001, the Company changed the way it processes its
bankruptcy filings and thus changed when it recognizes losses and
deferred the recognition of approximately $30 million of charge-offs
from June into July.

Providian allegedly manipulated its financial statements for 2nd
Quarter 2001, shaved 40 basis points off its managed net charge-off
rate of 10.3% and boosted reported EPS by $0.06.

Without this change, the loss rate would have been 10.7%, which was
well above defendants' guidance of 9.5%-10%.

Defendants made no mention of this change on the conference call or in
Providian's 2nd Quarter 2001 filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In fact, management only admitted this change after they came under
pressure from analysts following a flood of calls to their investor
relations department in late August 2001.

During the class period, taking advantage of the inflation in Company
stock, Providian insiders sold almost $22 million worth of their own
stock at artificially inflated prices of as much as $49.30 per share.
These sales were out of line with their prior trading history.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll-free) by E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com


STATE FARM: IL Suit Seeks Lost Value Reimbursement For Damaged Cars
-------------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Insurance Company faces a class action lawsuit, brought in
U.S. District Court, in St. Clair County in southern Illinois, seeking
reimbursement for value lost when a car is damaged.

The Pantagraph Bloomington reported the suit could involve 2.3 million
current and former policyholders.

Policyholders who are potential members of the class-action lawsuit are
receiving notices with information about the action which covers 33
states and the District of Columbia.

State Farm requested that the Court overturn the class certification,
arguing that certifying the lawsuit as a multi-state class action was
improper because of the differences among the state laws.   

The Company contended that each claim should be evaluated individually,
not as part of a class, but the court denied the request.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say there is "inherent diminished value"
when a car is damaged and repaired, which means that its market value
is lowered.  

The court has not decided if inherent diminished value is covered by
State Farm's policy, but has said that the issue is "ambiguous."

According to the Company, in most states, including Illinois, the
company's responsibility is limited to paying for the cost of repair of
the vehicle, not inherent diminished value.

A properly repaired vehicle does not lose market value, according to
State Farm spokesman, Dave Hurst.


TENFOLD CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securites Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of TenFold Corporation (Nasdaq: TENF)
between May 20, 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 May 1999, TenFold commenced an initial public offering of 4,700,000
of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $17 per share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
that 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 they agreed to allocate shares to those customers in
         the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For more details, contact Marc 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


UNITED PARCEL: Trial In Deaf Workers' Rights Suit Set For June 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action suit filed by deaf workers against United
Parcel Service, Inc. is set for June 2002, according to an Associated
Press report.

Federal Judge Thelton Henderson recently allowed the suit to proceed as
a class action, allowing the inclusion of 460 deaf people who have
worked for the Company since 1997 in the class.  The class action also
includes dozens of deaf applicants who were turned down for employment
at the company.

Five workers originally filed the suit, which claims that the Company
did not promote or facilitate training for deaf workers.

The workers claim that the Atlanta-based Company keeps most of its deaf
workers in low-level positions and denies them certain services, such
as having interpreters present during safety training sessions,
including a recent session on how to handle possible anthrax
contamination.  

Workers also allege they are denied Teletype phones to reach family
members in an emergency and that there are no visual warnings when
emergency alarms are sounded.

"There is danger inherent in any blue-collar job, but especially at
UPS, which handles packages in such large volume," Larry Paradis,
executive director of Oakland-based Disability Rights Advocates, told
the Los Angeles Times.  

He added, "UPS goes to great effort to train and retain its workers in
areas of safety, but excludes deaf workers from that service."

Company spokeswoman Peggy Gardner says UPS follows the rules, saying,
"We have absolutely complied with the law in regards to the hearing-
impaired.  UPS is proud of its record for the hiring, accommodation and
promotion of people with hearing and other disabilities."



WHITAKER SCHOOL: Parents, Students Sue School System Over Air Quality
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Six adults and students at Portland's Whitaker Middle School have filed
a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Portland, over air
quality problems in the school building.

The suit alleges that the now-closed school made the students sick and
that the school district was aware of the dangerous air quality
problems in the building, according to a recent report by the Portland
Oregonian.

The plaintiffs are seeking $1.5 million in damages and additional
compensation for other students and their parents who might qualify for
damages if the suit is certified as a class-action complaint.

The complaint alleges that the district deliberately concealed
Whitaker's air quality problems from parents, who, consequently, were
unable to make informed decisions about their children's schooling.


The suit further asserts that the students suffered headaches, upset
stomachs, and impaired ability to concentrate and learn.  It says the
condition of the building "permanently impacted their education and
academic opportunities."

A Portland Public Schools official declined comment.  The district
decided not to reopen the Whitaker school this fall after an inspection
during the summer unveiled problems in the roof, plumbing, heating and
cooling system, as well as the interior walls and ceiling.  

The former students are being bused to two other district schools while
the school district decides whether to spend $8.3 million to renovate
Whitaker.


ZIMBABWE: New York Court Orders Mugabe's Party To Pay $100 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
A New York Court recently issued a ruling in the class action on behalf
of the victims of the violence that engulfed Zimbabwe's parliamentary
elections last year.  

The Court ordered President Mugabe's Zanu-PF party to pay $100 million
compensation to the victims, or their families, The Daily Telegraph
recently reported.

It is unlikely that the money will be paid, but the plaintiffs'
attorneys plan to begin freezing and appropriating Zanu-PF assets in
Zimbabwe and worldwide.

One of the plaintiffs, Maria Stevens, testified that her husband, a
white tobacco farmer, was abducted and killed by militants.  She said
the award proved that some of Mr. Mugabe's followers "are absolute
thugs and terrorists."

Stevens added that even if she never sees the money, the case brought
further credibility and attention to the accusations of human rights
abuses in Zimbabwe.

Another witness, Adella Chiminya described how her husband Tichaona,
campaign manager for Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition
Movement for Democratic Change, was burned in his car by Zanu-PF
activists.

Another, Elliot Pfebve, joined the class action to seek justice for his
brother Matthew, beaten to death when a mob of more than 300 attacked
their home.

Any money received from the suit will go first to the plaintiffs, to
provide for their children's education and living costs, and the
remainder to a welfare fund.

The Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum documented more than 1,000 crimes from
beatings to torture committed during the 2000 election campaign.  It
said 31 people were killed in violence widely attributed to supporters
of the ruling Zanu-PF, who, later, were given amnesty for their crimes.

                              *********


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  * * *