CAR_Public/011109.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Friday, November 9, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 220

                           Headlines


ADAMS MARK: Judge Denies Certification Due To Lack of "Commonality"
AETNA INC.: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
AIRGATE PCS: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
APPLERA CORPORATION: Sued For Celera Genomics Stocks Sale Violations
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL

APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Settles State Rollover Suit For $51.5M
CJ's RESTAURANT: Accord Reached On Suit Due To Food Poisoning Outbreak
ENRON CORPORATION: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
EVOLVE SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

GENERAL MOTORS: Utah Gas Tank Claims Settled For Over $32 Million
GREAT WESTERN: Court To Rule On Settlement in Iowa Consumer Fraud Suit
IBM CORPORATION: Deskstar Drive User Sues For Alleged Product Defects
ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Charged With Securities Laws Violations In C.D.CA
METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit

MORGAN STANLEY: Court's Response To NY Fraud Suit Appeal Still Pending
NEBRASKA: Judge Says Cap Doesn't Apply To Children Of Disabled Mothers  
NEW YORK: Judge Grants Class Certification To Insurance Fraud Suit
NEXTCARD INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PASADENA SCHOOLS: Agrees To Settle Illegal Student Fees Suit For $227T

PEROT SYSTEMS: Denies S.D. New York Securities Suits' Accusations
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SIRIUS SATELLITE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences VT Securities Suit
SIRIUS SATELLITE: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in Vermont
TALISMAN ENERGY: Faces $1B Suit Protesting South Sudan Oil Operations

TERADYNE INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in Massachusetts
TEXTRON/LYCOMING: Moves To Close Malibu Mirage Aircraft Suit Website
UNISYS CORPORATION: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set For Dec. 2001
USINTERNETWORKING INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Suit in S.D. NY
UTSTARCOM INC.: States It Expects Similar Securities Suits In Future

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Concedes To $457M TX Securities Suit Settlement


                           *********


ADAMS MARK: Judge Denies Certification Due To Lack of "Commonality"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Magistrate Judge denied class certification to a lawsuit filed
by African-American employees of the Adams Mark chain of hotels, saying
the plaintiffs could not meet "typicality" and "commonality"
requirements.

The employees filed the suit, alleging they were victimized by a
"general policy of racial discrimination" carried out through an
entirely subjective decision-making process put into place by the
company's owner Fred Kummer.

Judge Charles B. Smith said his decision was based on the fact that the
plaintiffs were unable to pinpoint a "centralized decision making
process" that affected them all.

Smith noted in his 80-page report that the suit was filed on behalf of
all current and former African-American employees of defendants and
challenges "almost every employment practice," including:

     (1) promotional decisions;

     (2) salary, raise and benefits decisions;

     (3) hostile work environment;

     (4) hiring, training, promotion;

     (5) retaliation; and

     (6) termination


He said that much of the evidence presented was designed to show that
Kummer is a "racist" and that he has taken steps to eliminate
promotions that will attract black customers.

Smith said this reasoning was "flawed", saying the plaintiffs "make the
broad leap that the adverse employment actions suffered by the putative
class representatives resulted directly from Mr. Kummer's racist
tendencies, which have permeated the ranks of the hotel management."

He said that although the plaintiffs were "somewhat convincing", their
briefs failed to show any evidence of a "broad discriminatory policy in
the employment decisions of the company."

Smith said the plaintiffs were unable to "make a link between the
racial policies directed towards African-American customers of the
hotel and the employment discrimination claims of the defendants'
African-American employees."

He further opined, "No evidence exists that Fred Kummer was involved in
these day-to-day employment decisions at each of these hotels."

"Should this court certify the class, we would create a melting pot of
all African-American hourly and salaried employees, in every department
of each of defendants' 24 nationwide hotels, challenging every type of
employment action, by every supervisor and managerial employee," Smith
wrote.

"Indeed, the sole commonality among these named plaintiffs and,
presumably, among the putative class members is their race," Smith said
in his report.

Smith's recommendations will become the law of the case, if U.S.
District Judge R. Barclay Surrick, who referred all pretrial matters to
Smith, adopts them.

Smith has recommended that eight of the 11 named plaintiffs send their
cases back to their home districts in Missouri, North Carolina,
Colorado and Alabama.

Lawyers on both sides now have 10 days to lodge objections to Smith's
report.


AETNA INC.: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Aetna, Inc. (NYSE:AET) securities between December 13,
2000 and June 7, 2001, inclusive.

The suite was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

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

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market before and during the class period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued statements
concerning, among other things, the ability of the Company to control
and monitor its costs and obligations in light of the Company's
expected and actual sales.

Defendants allegedly knew that the Company's management systems,
procedures and controls for monitoring such costs were lacking but they
continued to make positive statements about these matters.

Between April 10, 2001 and May 8, 2001, the Company surprised the
market by announcing:

     (1) higher-than-anticipated medical costs during the fourth
         quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001,

     (2) faulty record-keeping which caused the payment of millions of
         dollars in medical claims for former clients, and

     (3) the absence of necessary management control systems required
         for management to know the Company's obligations and proper
         medical costs

Finally, on June 7, 2001, it was revealed that the cause of much of the
Company's financial woes was that: "Poor record-keeping has resulted in
... paying millions of dollars in medical claims for people whose
benefits have expired."

During the class period, the value of Company shares had been
artificially inflated to almost $43.00 per share but, as a result of
these disclosures, the Company's stock price plunged in excess of forty
percent to below $25.00 per share.

For more information, contact the Law Offices of Lovell & Stewart, LLP
by phone: 212-608-1900 or visit the firm's Website:
www.lovellstewart.com


AIRGATE PCS: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of AirGate PCS, Inc. (NASDAQ:PCSA) common stock
between September 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation and

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation

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

In September 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
6,700,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $17
per share.

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

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

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

    (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         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 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


APPLERA CORPORATION: Sued For Celera Genomics Stocks Sale Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory instruments maker Applera Corporation faces a consolidated
securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of subsidiary
Celera Genomics stock in the Company's follow-up public offering
completed on March 6, 2000.

In the offering, the Company sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4
million shares of Celera stock at a public offering price of $225 per
share.

All of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case and an
amended consolidated complaint was filed in August 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus used
in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading because it
failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of the Human
Genome Project and the governments of the United States and the United
Kingdom, to providing patent protection to the Company's genomic-based
products.

Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended to
seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the complaint
also alleges that the Company did not adequately disclose the risk that
it would not be able to patent this data.

The Company believes the asserted claims are without merit and intends
to defend the case vigorously.  However, it is uncertain about the
outcome of the case or any other litigation arising from it.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Apropos Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:APRS)
common stock from February 17, 2000 through May 15, 2000, inclusive.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against the Company, its top directors and its
underwriters.

The suit alleges the defendants issued false and misleading statements
concerning its business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that 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.

The prospectus listed Brady as Chief Technology Officer and Bach as
Vice President of Technology, but Apropos 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, therefore
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 Company founders - the people who developed and
patented that proprietary technology - still believed in the company,
its business and its technology," the complaint says.

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


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Apropos Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:APRS)
common stock in its February 17, 2000 initial public offering or in the
open market during the period between February 17, 2000 and May 15,
2000, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, charges the Company, the
Company's top directors and its underwriters with violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the complaint charges 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 officers.

Brady was listed as "Chief Technology Officer" (CTO) 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 Company President and Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) 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.

Thereafter, both Brady and Bach were listed in the prospectus and
falsely portrayed as active participants in the executive management of
the Company and its senior technology officers.

The Company 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 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


BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Settles State Rollover Suit For $51.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgestone Corporation will settle, for $51.5 million, state claims of
deaths and injuries linked to reportedly faulty Firestone tires,
announced Delaware Attorney General M. Jane Brady.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration linked Firestone
tires to 271 deaths and more than 800 injuries, in rollovers involving
Ford Motor's Explorer sport utility vehicles that used Firestone tires.

The investigation severed the almost 100-year-old relationship between
the two Companies as each blamed the other for the accidents.

Ford said it would stop using Firestone tires and is pushing for
billions of dollars in reimbursements, despite reports that Chief
Executive William Clay Ford Jr., was open to talks with the Company.

The Company recalled an additional 3.5 million Wilderness AT Tires sold
on Ford vehicles and provided as replacements in the first recall of
6.5 million last year.

Another NHTSA investigation revealed that Ford's Explorer sport utility
vehicle was no more likely to roll over after a tire separation than
other SUVs, dealing another blow to the Company.

Under the settlement, the Company will pay $500,000 to all 50 states,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and
spend $10 million for investigation costs and $5 million on consumer
education about tire safety.

The Company will also create a reimbursement fund for consumers who
exchanged recalled tires last year for brands made by its competitors.

In addition, the Company is required to monitor damages and failure
claims from tire owners, data it had ignored in safety investigations
prior to the year 2000.

The deal was reached a week ago, but took several days to finalize, one
source said. The states had not sued Bridgestone, but had pressured
Firestone to expand its recalls.

Brady said, "this settlement assures a fair restitution process for the
customers and provides greater protections for consumers in the
future."

Hundreds of private lawsuits are still pending against the two
Companies, 400 of which the Company has settled in the recent months.

Later this month, federal court will hear arguments as to whether the
cases should be consolidated into a class-action lawsuit.

Joan Claybrook, president of consumer group Public Citizen, said in an
Associated Press interview, "I think Firestone is trying to close all
the books on these pending matters.The recall has been done."


CJ's RESTAURANT: Accord Reached On Suit Due To Food Poisoning Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A notice of settlement was filed recently in Miami County Common Pleas
Court by Judge Jeffrey Welbaum, in the class-action filed following an
E. coli food poisoning outbreak traced to the former CJ's HighMarks
Restaurant in Troy, the Dayton Daily News recently reported.

In December 1999, the family of an infected boy filed a $10 million
class action lawsuit against the restaurant.  This event followed an E.
coli outbreak, in November 1999, traced to the HighMarks, which
sickened 39 people.

Details of the settlement were not disclosed. Judge Welbaum wrote in
the notice approving the settlement and dismissing the lawsuit, that
all parties were notified of the proposed settlement, allocation of
litigation costs and attorney fees.  

He said no objections were received.  According to the settlement
notice, both sides were agreeing not to disclose the documents
outlining the settlement until a further court order.

High Marks' lawyer James Utrecht of Troy said the settlement agreement
prohibited any comment.  Gary Plunkett of Dayton, lawyer for the
plaintiffs, was not available for comment.

Health Commissioner Jim Luken said the contamination was an unusual
outbreak because HighMarks otherwise had run a clean operation.   The
restaurant, which had opened in 1990, in Troy, closed a few weeks ago
for remodeling.


ENRON CORPORATION: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE)
common stock between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, inclusive.

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

     (1) Kenneth Lay,

     (2) Jeffrey K. Skilling and

     (3) Andrew Fastow.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period.

The suit further alleges that the Company issued a series of statements
concerning its business, financial results and operations that failed
to disclose:

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

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

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

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

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

Subsequently, the Company revealed that a material portion of the
charge was related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited
partnerships that were controlled by its Chief Financial Officer.

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

When this news hit the market, the price of the Company's common stock
dropped significantly.

For more information, contact Maurice Pesso or Eric Belfi by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212)
682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.rabinlaw.com


EVOLVE SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP lodged a securities class action on behalf
of purchasers of Evolve Software, Inc. (NASDAQ:EVLV) common stock
between August 9, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

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

In August 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $9 per
share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus that 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 Company shares to
         those customers in the Company 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


GENERAL MOTORS: Utah Gas Tank Claims Settled For Over $32 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation recently agreed to pay more than $32 million
to settle lawsuits brought in Utah and some other states by about
44,000 owners of General Motors' Chevrolet Tahoe and Yukon sports
utility vehicles, The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported.

The Utah lawsuit, like the others, alleged that the fuel tanks on the
1995, 1996 and 1997 Tahoe and Yukon vehicles held less gas than the 30
gallons advertised.

As one of the two representatives of the Utah class action, Ladel Laub
of Beryl, Utah, will receive a $10,000 certificate from General Motors
toward the purchase of a new vehicle.  

Other Tahoe and Yukon owners across the country who owned or leased the
vehicles and filled out forms to be eligible for the settlement, will
receive $750 certificates toward the purchase of a GM vehicle.

The certificates may be transferred to other family members and also
may be cashed in for a lesser dollar value, said Salt Lake City
attorney Brent Hatch, who represented Laub and others in the Utah
lawsuit.


GREAT WESTERN: Court To Rule On Settlement in Iowa Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa District Court for Lee County, Iowa will decide today if it
will give final approval to the settlement agreement proposed by Great
Western Bank has agreed to settle the class action arising from its
relationship with campground operator Thousand Adventures, Inc. (TAI).

In 1997, a consumer fraud class action was filed in the same court
against TAI relating to retail installment sales contracts originated
by TAI in connection with its sale of campground memberships.

The suit was later amended to include 18 financial institutions,
including the Company.

The amended petition alleges that more than 50,000 class members
purchased campground memberships at a cost ranging from $990 to $10,000
and that TAI assigned the contracts outright or as collateral to the
lenders.

The primary claim of the amended petition appears to be that the
lenders, as holders of the installment contracts, are subject to all
claims the members had against TAI, which allegedly include breach of
contract and consumer fraud, among other things.

In July 1997, a default judgment was entered against TAI certifying
that action against it as a class action and in the same year, TAI
began bankruptcy proceedings in the Iowa federal bankruptcy court.

Last month, Great Western Bank was dismissed as a defendant in the
above-described action and was named as sole defendant in a new
proceeding, all pursuant to a pending final settlement agreement.

If the pending settlement agreement becomes final, the amount of
potential claims the Company will be obligated to pay would not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or operations.

In the event that the settlement agreement is not approved, and if the
lawsuit were determined adversely to the Company, the decision might
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or
results of operations.

The Company has also disclosed that it cannot yet estimate the amount
of alleged damages, since the amount is "unspecified and speculative."


IBM CORPORATION: Deskstar Drive User Sues For Alleged Product Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer giant IBM Corporation faces a class action lawsuit due to
alleged defects in the Company's 75GXP hard drive that caused the
product to crash.

The drive, a 7,200RPM Deskstar 75GB drive, was released in March last
year, and was touted by the Company as the first "IBM drive to use
glass disk platters instead of aluminium"

The press release also stated that the drive allowed "the recording
head to read smaller bits of information that are packed more closely
together. In addition, glass disks are more stable at higher speeds."

Michael Granito, Jr., an American user, alleges in the suit that
contrary to the Company's representations, the "Deskstar 75GXP is
defectively designed and/or manufactured such that it is not a reliable
HDD and fails to function properly."

He said the defect manifests by the sudden occurrence of a loud
clicking or scratching noise causing the drive to stop operating and
crash.

The suit further alleges "the result of the crash is the irreversible
and permanent loss of data and software programs installed on the
Deskstar."

Nobody has determined the exact cause of the problem, but the Company
has always maintained that it produced "super reliable" drives, which
the suit refutes by pointing to a website that discusses "IBM hard disk
drive reliability."


ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Charged With Securities Laws Violations In C.D.CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces a consolidated class action suit filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California for securities laws violations.    

The consolidated suits arose from several class actions filed starting
February 1995 against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The defendants allegedly made various deceptive and untrue statements
of material fact and omitted to state material facts in connection with
information it received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regarding the Company's New Drug Application (NDA) for the use of
Virazole(R) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.

The suit also alleges and that certain officers of the Company
had allegedly engaged in illegal insider trading.

n May 1995, an additional securities class action was filed against
the defendants in the same court alleging that, the proxy materials and
prospectus prepared in connection with the merger of:

     (1) ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

     (2) SPI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

     (3) Viratek, Inc. and

     (3) ICN Biomedicals, Inc.,

effective November 10, 1994  contained false and misleading information
regarding the potential approval by the FDA of Virazole(R) for the
Hepatitis C indication.

The defendants had therefore established an excessive value for
the shares of Viratek in setting the exchange ratios for the four
companies in connection with the merger.

The suit further alleged that the Company's Chairman had engaged in
illegal insider trading of the Company's common stock.

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
exchanged their shares of the old ICN, SPI or Biomedicals for newly
issued shares of New ICN.

The court promptly ordered the above suits consolidated and on June 15,
the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.

The Court also ordered the Company to cooperate in a private
investigation to be conducted by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The investigation relates to certain matters pertaining to the status
and disposition of the Company's Hepatitis C NDA.

The investigation hopes to find out whether, during the period June
1994, through February 1995, the Company, persons or entities
associated with it and others, in the offer and sale or in connection
with the purchase and sale of ICN common stock, engaged in possible
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The SEC hopes to reveal whether the Company and its associates
possibly:

     (i) made false or misleading statements or omitted to state
         material facts with respect to the status and disposition of
         the Hepatitis C NDA, or

    (ii) purchased or sold the Company's common stock while in
         possession of material, non-public information concerning the
         status and disposition of the Hepatitis C NDA or


   (iii) conveyed material, non-public information concerning the
         status and disposition of the Hepatitis C NDA to other persons
         who may have purchased or sold Company stock.

The Company is cooperating with the SEC in its investigation.


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Metawave Communications
Corporation (NASDAQ:MTWV) between April 26, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

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

In April 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
6,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $9 per
share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus that 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 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 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


MORGAN STANLEY: Court's Response To NY Fraud Suit Appeal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit against several Morgan
Stanley limited partnerships are still waiting for the New York
Appellate Court to rule on their appeal.

Several class actions were commenced in September 1996 in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County, on behalf of all
purchasers of interests in limited partnership commodity pools sold by
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.

The suit named several limited partnerships as defendants:

     (1) Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.,

     (2) Demeter Management Corporation,

     (3) Dean Witter Futures & Currency Management Inc.,

     (4) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Company,

     (5) Spectrum Select (under its original name, "Dean Witter Select
         Futures Fund L.P."),  

     (6) certain other limited partnership commodity pools of which
         Demeter Management Corporation is the general partner, and

     (7) certain trading advisors to the above limited partnership
         pools.

The suits were later ordered consolidated and an amended complaint in
was filed in August 1997, alleging that the defendants committed the
following in the sale and operation of the commodity pools:

     (i) fraud,

    (ii) breach of fiduciary duty, and

   (iii) negligent misrepresentation

The court dismissed the suit in November 1998, but granted plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint, which they did in early December
1998.

In December 1999, the court dismissed the case with prejudice - a
decision that the plaintiffs promptly appealed.


NEBRASKA: Judge Says Cap Doesn't Apply To Children Of Disabled Mothers  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lancaster County District Court Judge Paul Merritt, in Nebraska,
recently ruled that the "family cap" on welfare benefits does not apply
to the children of disabled mothers, the Omaha World-Herald recent
reported.  

The ruling could affect up to 1,000 children, making them eligible for
retroactive benefits.

Three, low-income disabled mothers filed a class action opposing the
state's welfare reform law, which went into effect in 1997, put a
"family cap" on benefits.  

Families with children born 10 months or more after the family started
receiving welfare no longer could receive a $71 increase in monthly
benefits for each additional child.  

According to the Nebraska Health and Human Services System, that
provision includes disabled mothers.

The suit argues that the Legislature intended the "family cap" to
apply only to welfare recipients who can work.

Judge Merritt wrote, in his ruling, that self-sufficiency was the
purpose of the welfare act's "family cap," which was intended to
discourage large families, thereby enabling a physically capable woman
to go out to work.  

Interpreting the law as applicable to those who cannot be self-
sufficient defeats the purpose of the legislation, the judge said.

A spokeswoman for Health and Human Services declined to comment, saying
the department's lawyer had not had a chance to study the ruling.

Milo Mumgaard, director of the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the
Public Interest, which had filed and argued the lawsuit for the
families, said the law had been applied to the wrong families.

He expects the state to appeal, but added that he wants a state
official to proceed with the payments- $71 per month fulfills a lot of
basic care and diaper needs.


NEW YORK: Judge Grants Class Certification To Insurance Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Bruce Kauffman allowed the lawsuit filed against New York
Life Insurance Company by its current and former employees to proceed
as a class action.

Kauffman ruled that the number of employees with cases against the
Company was too numerous to try individually.  He, however, reserved
judgment on the merits of the case.

The suit alleges that the Company improperly used worker pensions and
401(k) funds in the late 1990s as capital for a new mutual fund named
Mainstay Institutional Funds.

The suit, filed on behalf of almost 50,000 workers, also claims the
Company charged excessive fees and failed to move employee assets
elsewhere when the funds performed poorly.

The Company has denied the allegations, calling the suit
"opportunistic."

Vice President William Werfelman said that the pension fund now boasts
a $900 million surplus, compared with $25 million a decade ago and its
financial performance is "extraordinarily healthy"' and in line with
industry averages.


NEXTCARD INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of NextCard Inc. (NASDAQ:NXCD) publicly traded
securities during the period between March 30, 2000 and October 30,
2001, inclusive.

The suit, filed 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 1934.

The suit alleges that defendants disseminated false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operations and prospects for 2000
and 2001.

In fact defendants knew the Company'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 Company
stock, Company insiders sold almost $9 million worth of their own 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 the Company's portfolio,
         the Company would need to dramatically increase its reserves
         for loan losses in fiscal 2000 and in the first, second and
         third quarters in 2001 and as result its reported value of its
         loans for the period 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 ration had plummeted
         below acceptable levels, it had been technically subject to a
         Prompt Correction Action Order and thereby restricted from
         accepting or reviewing any brokered 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 Company 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.

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


PASADENA SCHOOLS: Agrees To Settle Illegal Student Fees Suit For $227T
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) will settle a student fees
class action suit pending in the Pasadena Superior Court for $227,798.

Three parents who paid illegally charged fees for certain school
activities filed the suit, which applies to fees that were paid between
1998 and 2001.

Under the settlement, claimants could receive from $5 to more than
$1,000. Claimants for the suit could reach up to 30,000, according to
PUSD attorney, Dana McCune.

The settlement will also cover the claims and pay for half of the
parents' legal fees, which could reach $75,000.  If there's money left
over, the district will have to put it back into the programs that had
been sustained by illegal fees.

The district will pay for the other half of parents' legal fees with
other money.

Plaintiff Rene Amy hailed the settlement saying that it was a step
towards ensuring free education for economically disadvantaged
students.

"What it means for PUSD students is that hopefully never again will
they be faced with these fees, which can be anything from minor
irritants to real budget busters," Amy told the Pasadena Star News in
an interview.

District spokesman Erik Nasarenko also expressed satisfaction with the
settlement while board member Ed Honowitz said the settlement sends a
message that the district follows the law.

However, Honowitz says "The unfortunate part is we may not be able to
offer programs that we offered to (students) before."

Parties in the suit will meet with Superior Court Judge Ann Kough on
November 14 to review the settlement.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Denies S.D. New York Securities Suits' Accusations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perot Systems Corporation labeled "without merit" several securities
suits pending against them in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suits commenced in July and August 2001 against the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and certain investment
banks.

The suits uniformly allege violations of Rule 10b-5, promulgated under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The suits allege improper practices by the investment banks in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in February 1999.

Specifically, the suits assert that certain investment banks, in
exchange for allocations of public offering shares to their customers,
received undisclosed commissions from their customers on the purchase
of securities.

These banks required their customers to purchase additional shares of
the Company in aftermarket trading.

The lawsuits also allege that the Company should have disclosed in its
public offering prospectus the alleged practices of the investment
banks, whether or not the Company was aware that the practices were
occurring.

The Company believes it is part of the trend of securities suits
against companies who have issued initial public offerings in the past
two years.

The Company also expressed confidence that the suit will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operation or cash flow.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Providian Financial Corp. (NYSE:
PVN) securities between June 6, 2001 and October 18, 2001.

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

     (1) Shailesh J. Mehta, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
         President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) David J. Alvarez, Vice Chairman,

     (3) James H. Rowe, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
         Officer, and

     (4) J. David Grissom, Director

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

Providian allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements
to the investing public about the Company's balance sheet and financial
results, and about prospects for the second and third quarters of 2001.

The Company also allegedly concealed material facts regarding the its
changes in policy and procedure for the extension of credit to sub-
prime lenders, and for writing-off receivables for customers that filed
for bankruptcy protection.

Providian is one of the largest Visa and MasterCard issuers in the
United States, having grown rapidly by issuing credit cards primarily
to "sub-prime" borrowers, those with either limited or poor credit
histories.

This business model worked exceptionally well during economic boom
times, when riskier sub-prime borrowers were able to service credit-
card debt.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Second Quarter of
2001, amid industry-wide concerns about the quality of credit held by
card issuers, the Company guided the investing public that a key metric
of credit quality would be less than 10%.

The "managed net charge-off rate," which for the Second Quarter of 2000
had been 7.6%, was expected to be 9.5% to 10% for the Second Quarter of
2001. In late June 2001, it became apparent to insiders that the
charge-off rate would far exceed their guidance.

To control the impact of the news, without public disclosure, the
Company changed its policy for reporting cardholder bankruptcies in a
way that pushed nearly two weeks of bankruptcies from the Second to the
Third Quarter, lowering the charge-off rate by 40 basis points.

Providian changed from a policy and practice of immediately writing-off
receivables upon receipt of electronic notification that customers had
filed for bankruptcy protection to a policy and practice of
accumulating or "batching" bankruptcy notifications and then writing-
off those receivables once per month.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of this change, which
was inconsistent with industry practice and defendants' prior
representations to analysts, roughly $30 million in charge-offs were
pushed out of the second quarter and into the third quarter of 2001.

Defendants were thus able to lower by four tenths of one percent the
Company's second quarter managed net charge-off rate, a critical metric
in determining the credit quality of a credit-card lender, especially
one which primarily lent to riskier sub-prime borrowers.

The change in bankruptcy reporting reduced the charge-off rate to
10.3%, and boosting the Company's reported earnings per share by $. 06.
Without this accounting change, Providian's loss rate would have been
10.7%, well above defendant's prior guidance of 9.5% to 10%.

On October 18, 2001, defendants revealed that the Company's earnings
per share for the third quarter of 2001 were substantially lower than
what they had previously led the market to believe.

In the wake of this news release, the price of Providian stock fell to
$5.15 per share -- more than 90% below the class period high of $59.80
per share.

During the class period, defendants Alvarez, Rowe, Grissom and Mehta
sold roughly $25 million worth of their stock at prices that were
artificially inflated as high as $50.00 per share.

For more information, contact George Peters, Derek Behnke, Thomas H.
Burt or Fred Taylor Isquith 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 Providian.


SIRIUS SATELLITE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences VT Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. (NASDAQ:SIRI)
common stock from February 17, 2000 through April 2, 2001, inclusive.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Vermont, charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws.

The defendants allegedly failed to disclose facts know to them, or
recklessly disregarded by them, which demonstrated that the announced
commercial launch dates for the Company's satellites required for the
its service were impossibly ambitious.

Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that it would be possible
for the Company to offer its service commercially by the end of 2000,
as initially disclosed, or early in 2001, as subsequently disclosed.

The Complaint alleges that at all times the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and press releases
concerning when the its service would be commercially available.

These misstatements caused the market price of Company stock to be
artificially inflated.

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


SIRIUS SATELLITE: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in Vermont
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. (NASDAQ:SIRI)
common stock during the period between February 17, 2000 and April 2,
2001, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont, charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violating the federal securities laws.

The defendants allegedly failed to disclose facts known to them, or
recklessly disregarded by them, which demonstrated that the announced
commercial launch dates for the Company's satellites required for the
its service, were impossibly ambitious.

Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that it would be possible
for the Company to offer its service commercially by the end of 2000,
as initially disclosed, or early in 2001, as subsequently disclosed.

The complaint alleges that at all times the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and press releases
concerning when the Company's service would be commercially available,
which caused the market price of Company common stock to be
artificially inflated.

When the truth about the Company's business was revealed to the public,
the price of its common stock dropped precipitously.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.classlawyer.com


TALISMAN ENERGY: Faces $1B Suit Protesting South Sudan Oil Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian oil company Talisman Energy (Toronto: TLM.TO) faces a $1
billion class action filed by a U.S. anti-slavery group in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The American Anti-Slavery Group charges the Company with violating
"international law for participating in the ethnic cleansing of black
and non-Muslim Minorities in southern Sudan."

The Company holds a 25% stake in Sudan's only major oil-producing
project, which pumps out more than 200,000 barrels of oil a day.

International human rights organizations and church groups have
severely criticized the Company, whose operations, they say, helps fund
Sudan's Khartoum government's civil war against Christian and tribal
rebels south of the impoverished country.

The suit further alleges, "Talisman, in an effort to protect its oil
fields in Sudan, aided and abetted the fundamentalist Islamic
government in its ongoing and self-proclaimed `jihad' - a campaign that
has resulted in massive civilian displacement; the burning of villages,
churches and crops; and the murder and enslavement of innocent
civilians."

Board member and attorney Carey D'Avino, and another lawyer, Stephen
Whinston filed the suit on behalf of plaintiffs that include the
Presbyterian Church of Sudan and two individuals.

Talisman was not immediately available for comment.

However, CEO Jim Buckee has maintained that the firm was improving the
situation by aiding economic development and initiating community
projects as building schools, hospitals and roads.

He has asserted that the Company was doing all it could to convince the
Sudanese government to improve its human rights record.

Earlier this year the U.S. Congress proposed legislation that would ban
companies operating in Sudan from being listed on stock markets in the
United States. It has since halted the proposal.


TERADYNE INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Teradyne, Inc. (NYSE:TER) from
between July 14, 2000 and October 17, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company, George Chamillard and
Michael A. Bradley.

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

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between July 14, 2000 and October 17, 2000, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

The complaint alleges Teradyne was experiencing declining orders in its
semiconductors testing systems division, which would cause the
Company's growth rate to slow from historical levels.

Defendants concealed this adverse fact from investors, so that the
Company could complete the acquisition of Herco Technology Corporation
and Perception Laminates, Inc., d/b/a Synthane Taylor, using
artificially inflated common stock as currency.

When the truth about Teradyne's business was revealed to the public,
the price of the Company's common stock dropped precipitously.

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


TEXTRON/LYCOMING: Moves To Close Malibu Mirage Aircraft Suit Website
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas attorney Fred Misko, Jr., today charged Textron/Lycoming and The
New Piper Aircraft, Inc., makers of the Malibu Mirage aircraft that are
the focus of pending class action litigation, with trying to deny
Mirage owners the full use of their aircraft.

Misko also accused the two companies of attempting to deny Mirage
owners access to information about the lawsuit, and ultimately seeking
to abridge the owners' rights to free speech and communication with
their lawyers.

Calling the motions filed by Textron and New Piper "an attempt to quash
legitimate customer complaints," Misko today asked a United States
District Court to allow his firm to leave in place a web site featuring
information about the case.

"The motions filed by Textron and New Piper are blatant attempts to
deny their customers the right to legal counsel or the opportunity even
to access information so they can decide for themselves whether they
want to seek redress," said Misko.

He added, "With our response to the motions, we are attempting to
preserve the rights of some 1,200-1,500 current and former owners of
Malibu Mirage aircraft nationwide to seek compensation for a
significant loss in market value of their aircraft."

In September, 2000, Misko filed a class action lawsuit against
Textron/Lycoming and New Piper on behalf of current and former owners
of Malibu Mirage aircraft nationwide.

Filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, the lawsuit
alleges claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act (FDUTPA) for misrepresentations and wrongdoings by Textron/Lycoming
and New Piper related to the TIO-540-AE2A engine.

In October 2001, Misko established a web site,
www.TextronEngineLitigation.com, to allow current and former owners of
Piper Malibu Mirage aircraft to access comprehensive information about
the class action lawsuit and to provide a vehicle for them to ask
questions and offer comments.

When the two Companies became aware of the web site's existence, they
filed motions asking the Court to:

     (1) shut down the web site in its current form;

     (2) to disqualify Fred Misko, Jr., and another lawyer with his
         firm, Charles Ames, as Plaintiffs' counsel in the class
         action; and

     (3) to limit communications between the law firm and Mirage
         owners.

Misko and Ames responded by asking the Court to deny the motions in
their entirety and states that there is no support for any of the
claims contained in the motions.

"The motions misstate the applicable law regarding communications with
class members and, more importantly, seriously misrepresent the actual
facts surrounding this issue," the response reads.

Misko said that neither the plaintiffs' class representative in the
case, William S. Montgomery, Jr., or his counsel have violated any
rules of the State Bar of Florida and have not acted inappropriately in
providing information to absent, potential class members.

Both the motions filed by Textron and New Piper, as well as Misko's
response, are available to the public on the web site.

According to the lawsuit, Textron and New Piper touted the TIO-540-AE2A
engine as the "strongest, most reliable six cylinder engine in general
aviation" and specifically represented that the engine had a 2,000-hour
TBO (Time Between Overhaul).

In actual use, the lawsuit alleges, Mirage owners have experienced
consistently premature failures that have required engine overhaul or
replacement at one-third or less than the service life published by the
manufacturers.

After twelve years of production, Textron/Lycoming admitted in a
Mandatory Service Advisory issued more than a year ago that a safety of
flight risk exists with these aircraft.

The lawsuit contends that all of the owners in this class have been
damaged by Textron/Lycoming's and New Piper's concealing information
and making serious misrepresentations regarding the engine's 2000-hour
TBO service life and reliability.

Under the terms of a settlement proposal submitted by Misko, Mirage
owners could receive significant compensation for the loss in market
value of their aircraft.

"Clearly, the purpose of Textron's and New Piper's motions is to shut
down a legitimate form of communication between Mirage owners and
attorneys representing class members in this lawsuit," said Misko.

"The Internet web site is merely an open line of communications via the
Internet that makes it convenient for Mirage owners and other
interested parties to view actual court documents and make informed
decisions about the case, as is their right."


UNISYS CORPORATION: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set For Dec. 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has
set for December 5,2001 the fairness hearing for the agreement proposed
by Unisys Corporation to settle the securities class action against
them.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's common
stock during the period May 4, 1999 through October 14, 1999, alleges
allege violations of federal securities laws in connection with
statements made by the Company concerning certain of its services
contracts.

The hearing will determine:
     
     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the suit for $5,750,000 in
         cash plus accrued interest should be approved by the Court as
         fair, reasonable, and adequate;

     (2) whether the application of plaintiffs' counsel for an award of
         attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
         approved; and

     (3) whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice.


USINTERNETWORKING INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of USinternetworking, Inc
(NASDAQ:USIX) between April 9,1999 and December 6,2000, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and its underwriter Credit
Suisse First Boston for illegally misleading investors.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it contained material misrepresentations and
omissions about:

     (1) the agreements with customers whereby Credit Suisse First
         Boston had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions in exchange for an allocation of the Company's
         shares issued in connection with the initial public offering;
         and

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby Credit Suisse First Boston would allocate
         Company shares issued in connection with the initial public
         offering in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional Company shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

For more details, contact Andrew J. Morganti by E-mail: ajm@ftllaw.com


UTSTARCOM INC.: States It Expects Similar Securities Suits In Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------
UTStarcom, Inc. (NASDAQ:UTSI) believes it has meritorious defenses to a
securities class action pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between March 2, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, against the
Company, certain of its officers and its underwriters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Company expects additional similar cases will be filed in the
coming months.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Concedes To $457M TX Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. (WMI) agreed to settle for $457 million the
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The suit arose when its stock price collapsed in 1999 after an
accounting scandal that caused the Company to restate financial results
for several quarters.

As a result, the Company's stock price dropped from more than $56 to
$13.  The Company also fired its top management and began selling off
some non-core businesses acquired during expansion.

More than 30 suits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, after the scandal and were
later consolidated into a single action.

The suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Company securities
(including common stock, debentures and call options), and all sellers
of put options, from June 11, 1998 through November 9, 1999.


The Company said the settlement is still subject to additional
discovery by the plaintiffs and court approval.

The Company also revealed that accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLC
would pay it $20 million to settle a related malpractice suit.


                              *********


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  * * *