CAR_Public/011112.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
   
            Monday, November 12, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 221

                         Headlines


AETNA INC.: Sued In IL By Dentists, ADA For Unfair Trade Practices
AETNA INC.: NY Medical Practitioners Sue For Illegal Trade Practices
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Weiss Yourman Commences C.D. CA Securities Suit  
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Kenneth Moll Files Suit Due To Dialysis Machines
BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit

CRITICAL PATH: Settles For $17.5 Million Securities Suits in N.D. CA
DQE INC.: Bernard Gross Commences W.D. Pennsylvania Securities Suit
E-LOAN INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
ENRON CORPORATION: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
ENRON CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Initiates S.D. TX Securities Suit

EXXON MOBIL: Court Declares $5B Award For 1989 Oil Spill "Excessive"
FEDERAL RESERVE: Attorney's Request To Withdraw From Suit Refused
FLORIDA: Motorists Sue Auto Emissions Program For Overcharging Fees
FLORIDA: AAPD Sues After Purchase of "Inaccessible" Voting Machines
FORD MOTOR: Analysis Shows Older Workers, Men Receive Lower Ratings

GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Cohen Milstein Files C.D. CA Securities Suit
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files NY Securities Suit
INTERNET CAPITAL: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
INTERSIL HOLDING: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

LITTLE CAESAR: $350 Million Settlement In Franchisee Suit Approved
NEXTCARD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. Illinois
NORTHPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in S.D. NY
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges S.D. FL Securities Suit
PURCHASEPRO.COM: Kaplan Kilsheimer Commences Nevada Securities Suit
WESTPOINT STEVENS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA


                         *********


AETNA INC.: Sued In IL By Dentists, ADA For Unfair Trade Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare provider Aetna, Inc. faces a class action suit filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The American Dental Association and dentists, James B. Swanson and
Michael B. Dayoub, filed the suit against Aetna Inc. and two of its
subsidiaries.

The suit alleges in substance that the Company paid out-of-network
dental providers less than billed charges for services provided to
health plan members and used inappropriate methodology in determining
the amounts paid for dental services provided to members.

The suit seeks relief based upon:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) trade libel, and

     (3) tortuous interference with existing and prospective business

The Company requested the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer this case to the Florida Federal Court for consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the other provider cases.

In September 13, 2001, this case was conditionally transferred to the
Florida Federal Court, and the plaintiffs have not opposed that
transfer.

This action is in the preliminary stages.


AETNA INC.: NY Medical Practitioners Sue For Illegal Trade Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries face several class action suits
filed by New York medical practitioners in the Supreme Court of New
York for New York County.

The Medical Society of the State of New York and doctors, Edgar
Borrero, Albert M. Ellman and Robert Scher, filed separate complaints
alleging violations of:

     (1) the New York unfair trade practices law,

     (2) prompt payment law and

     (3) public health law.

The purported class action complaint filed by the physicians seeks
relief based upon:

     (i) breach of contract,

    (ii) violations of the New York deceptive trade practices law,

   (iii) prompt payment law and

    (iv) public health law

The Company removed both cases to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York and has requested the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer these cases to the Florida
Federal Court for consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other
provider cases.

In October 2001, these cases were conditionally transferred to the
Florida Federal Court.

Each of these actions is in the preliminary stages, and the Company
intends to continue to defend each action vigorously.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Weiss Yourman Commences C.D. CA Securities Suit  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Apria Healthcare Group Inc. (NYSE:AHG) common stock
between March 2, 1995 through Jan. 20, 1998, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Also included in the Class are shareholders of:

     (1) Homedco Group Inc.,

     (2) Abbey Healthcare Group Inc.

who exchanged their Homedco and Abbey shares for shares of the Company
as part of the merger.

The class action claims complain of a fraudulent scheme involving the
merger of the above Companies to form Apria Healthcare in July 1995.

Specifically, defendants represented to the public that the merger
would achieve significant cost savings, was moving smoothly and rapidly
through the integration process, and that the combined company would
experience and was experiencing economies of scale and efficiencies in
field operations.

In truth, the Company's new computerized billing system, the "lifeblood
of the Company," was consistently billing insurance companies for the
wrong types of payments and/or authorizing services not covered by the
subject insurance.

This caused insurance companies to reject the bills and the Company to
accumulate massive amounts of accounts receivable that it is unlikely
to collect.

Also undisclosed during the class period:

     (i) the Company was providing kickbacks to doctors in return
         for referrals;

    (ii) the Company's field operations were in chaos and serious
         non-compliance with FDA regulations, and

   (iii) the Company was selling its services at less than cost.

While the foregoing was concealed from the public, the defendants knew,
and each individual defendant named in the suit engaged in illegal
insider selling of stock, for combined proceeds of approximately $14
million

For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman, by Mail: 10940
Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90024 by Phone:
(310) 208-2800 by Fax: (310) 209-2348 or by E-mail: info@wyca.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Kenneth Moll Files Suit Due To Dialysis Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth B. Moll and Associates, Ltd. will file a worldwide class action
lawsuit on behalf of all kidney dialysis patients who have used Baxter
International, Inc.'s potentially deadly dialysis machines.

There have been 56 reported deaths of patients who used Baxter dialysis
machines worldwide.

The primary component of the dialysis machine is the dialyzer. The
dialyzer is a large canister containing thousands of hair-like fibers
through which the blood is passed.

Dialysis solution, the cleansing fluid, is pumped around these fibers.
The fibers allow wastes and extra fluids to pass from the patient's
blood into the solution, which carries them away.

The recalled dialyzers were A, AF and AX series dialyzers, produced at
the Company's plant in Ronneby, Sweden. The Company stopped
distributing the filters worldwide in September, 2001, but did not
institute a recall until October 18, 2001.

It has been reported that during the summer and fall of 2001, 15
patients in Spain, 23 patients in Croatia, seven in Taiwan, five in
Germany, two in Columbia and four in the United States, died after
using the recalled dialyzers.

The Company issued a press release on November 5, 2001 stating that a
processing fluid called perfluorohydrocarbons was used in the
manufacturing process of certain dialyzer fibers to test for leaks at
its Ronneby, Sweden.

The perfluorohydrocarbons should have been removed from the filters
upon the completion of the manufacturing process.

On November 6, 2001, Dr. David W. Feigal, Director of the FDA Center
for Medical Devices and Radiological Health, stated in the New York
Times that perfluorohydrocarbons are liquid at room temperature but
become gas if warmed to body temperature.

As a liquid, the perfluorohydrocarbons could have created dangerous gas
bubbles in the bloodstream, resulting in the patients' deaths.

Attorney Kenneth Moll said, "a primary goal of the BAXTER Class Action
is to inform the public and physicians of the potential complications
of using these Baxter dialyzers."

Moll said he is concerned that the dialyzers could injure thousands of
people.  The lawsuit will seek compensation for those injured and those
that died from the Company's dialyzers

For more information, contact Kenneth B. Moll by Mail: Three First
National Plaza 54th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60602 by Phone: (312) 558-
6444 or (888) 882-3453 by Fax: (312) 558-1112 by E-mail:
lawyers@kbmoll.com or visit the firm's Website: www.kbmoll.com


BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Bookham Technology PLC (NASDAQ:BKHM)
securities between April 11, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Andrew G. Rickman, CEO, President and Director,

     (2) Stephen J. Cockrell, CFO and Secretary,

     (3) David Simpson, Chairman,

     (4) Goldman, Sachs & Co. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 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
19,360,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15.83
per share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus which, the suit alleges, was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose 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 Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com  


CRITICAL PATH: Settles For $17.5 Million Securities Suits in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Path, Inc. (NASDAQ:CPTH) reached binding memoranda of
understanding to settle shareholder and derivative litigation pending
in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suits were filed against the Company, its current and former
officers and directors, and their accountants.

The complaints generally allege that, in differing periods from
December 1999 to February 1, 2001, the Company made false or misleading
statements of material fact about their financial statements for the
year 2000 and beyond.

Derivative actions were also filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California and in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The shareholder litigation settlement provides for a payment of $17.5
million in cash and the issuance by the Company of warrants to purchase
850,000 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $10.00 per
share.

In the derivative litigation, settlement provides for certain corporate
governance changes and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Under the terms of the settlements, all claims against the Company and
all other defendants will be dismissed without admission of liability
or wrongdoing by any party.

The settlements are subject to negotiation and execution of final
settlement documents, notice to class members and shareholders, and
review and approval by the court.

"This closes an important chapter in Critical Path's history and
represents a completed step in our turnaround," said David Hayden,
executive chairman of Critical Path.

He added "With these settlements behind us, the Company can focus
aggressively on future and technological leadership in the messaging
market."


DQE INC.: Bernard Gross Commences W.D. Pennsylvania Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross PC lodged a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of of DQE, Inc. (NYSE: DQE) in the open market and through
the DQE Electri-stock dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan
between December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania against the Company and officer David
Marshall.

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

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The suit alleges that the Company issued positive statements concerning
the significant and positive impact that DQE Enterprises, Inc., the
Company's investment subsidiary, was having, and would continue to
have, on its financial results.

During this time, the market for initial public offerings had
dramatically slowed down. Accordingly, the ability of the companies in
DQE Enterprises' investment portfolio to go public was substantially
impaired.

Defendants, however, issued a stream of positive statements concerning
the Company's operations and prospects, but failed to disclose the
impaired nature of DQE Enterprises' investments and that the Company
would not realize the investment gains that defendants had caused the
market to expect.

As a result, defendants' estimates, projections and opinions as to the
Company's operations, products, earnings and income were knowingly
lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

This information finally became publicly known on April 30, 2001, when
the Company reported its earnings for the first quarter of 2001 and
revised its earnings outlook for the full year, based in part, on the
weakened outlook for DQE Enterprises.

In response to this negative announcement, when trading resumed on May
1, 2001, the price of Company stock dropped from $30.43 per share to
$23.75 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross by
Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Second Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
866-561-3600 (toll free), 800-849-3120 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 by
E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.bernardmgross.com


E-LOAN INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired E-Loan, Inc. (NasdaqNM:EELN)
common stock between June 28, 1999 and August 10, 2001, inclusive.

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

The suit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder.

The defendants allegedly issued and sold Company stock in the initial
public offering without disclosing that:

     (1) at least one of the lead underwriters and two of the other
         underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors;

     (2) in exchange for the excessive commissions, the underwriters
         allocated shares to customers at the IPO price of $14.00 per
         share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to
         purchase shares) at $14.00, the defendant underwriters'
         brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares
         in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

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

This artificial price inflation enabled both the defendant underwriters
and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying Company stock at
the $14.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated
aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $51.00 during its first day
of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their
customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret
commissions.

These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the
fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her
IPO stock allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because the prospectus distributed to investors and the
registration statement contained material misstatements regarding the
commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed
to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed
above.

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell and Stewart LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) common stock between January
18 2000 and October 30, 2001, inclusive.

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

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations during
the class period.

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

     (i) that the Company's Broadband Services Division was
         experiencing declining demand for bandwidth and the Company's
         effort 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 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 GAAP.

On October 16, 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing
that it was taking non-recurring charges of $1.01 billion after-tax, of
($1.11) loss per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2001, the
period ending September 30, 2001.

Subsequently, the Company revealed that its Chief Financial Officer,
who was responsible for the unwinding of investments with certain
limited partnerships, controlled of good portion of those investments.

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

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

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

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Initiates S.D. TX Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Enron Corporation
(NYSE:ENE) during the period of January 18, 2000 through and including
October 17, 2001.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Houston Division) against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

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

The complaint charges that the defendants misrepresented and concealed
material facts concerning the Company's financial transactions with two
partnerships established by its then Chief Financial Officer, which
resulted in substantial losses to Enron and a reduction in
shareholders' equity of over $1 billion.

The price of the Company's common stock has plummeted over 50% since
the disclosure of the financial losses resulting from its dealings with
these partnerships.

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


EXXON MOBIL: Court Declares $5B Award For 1989 Oil Spill "Excessive"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the federal court's $5
billion damage award against oil giant Exxon Mobil stemming from the
nation's worst oil spill in Anchorage, Alaska.

Thousands of commercial fishermen, Alaska natives, and property owners
were affected in 1989, when an Exxon Valdez tanker was grounded in
Prince William Sound, spilling millions of gallons of oil off Alaska's
coast.

The accident polluted more than 1,000 miles (1,610 km) of shoreline,
disrupted fishing and damaged the environment.

An Anchorage, Alaska federal jury found the Company and Joseph
Hazelwood, the captain of the Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, guilty of
recklessness last year.

The jury then awarded $5 billion to the plaintiffs in the civil suit-
the biggest punitive damage award in history at that time and equal to
a year's worth of the Company's profits.

Exxon Mobil opposed the verdict saying, it was "completely unwarranted,
unfair and is excessive by any legal or practical measure."

The jury also awarded commercial fishermen $287 million to compensate
them for economic losses suffered as a result of the spill, which the
Appellate Court has left intact.

The Appellate Court's ruling sparked anger among Alaskan fisherman and
prompted Alaska governor Tony Knowles to interfere.

Patience Anderson Faulkner's family owned a fishing permit valued at
about $210,000 before the spill.  She says the permit now would be
worth about "$50,000 for anyone foolish enough to buy it."

She says, "That $5 billion would have at least put a finger in the
dike. We all recognize violence doesn't help, but we sure would like to
choke them."

David Oesting, a lawyer representing fishermen in the case, said he
might ask the court to reconsider, or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to
review it.

Gov. Tony Knowles said Wednesday he will attempt to bring the two sides
to a negotiated settlement, saying the case has dragged on too long.

"The Exxon Valdez oil spill has really been a cloud that has hung over
those fishing families and communities for more than a decade," Knowles
said. "The court decision today didn't bring any resolution to that."

In a press release, Company Chairman Lee Raymond said the spill "was a
tragic accident that the company deeply regrets."

The statement added Exxon Mobil had spent $2.2 billion on the spill
cleanup, continuing the effort from 1989 until 1992 when both the State
of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard declared the cleanup complete.

The Company also voluntarily began paying damage claims immediately
after the accident to fully compensate those directly damaged by the
spill.

According to the statement, more than 11,000 people and businesses
received more than $300 million in compensation.

The appeals court decision sends the case back to the federal court in
Anchorage, Alaska, with orders to reduce the award to an amount
consistent with constitutional limits.


FEDERAL RESERVE: Attorney's Request To Withdraw From Suit Refused
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge William Hibbler refused to allow the
plaintiffs' attorneys to withdraw from the racial discrimination class
action against the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Attorney Edward Stein has asked twice in the recent weeks to withdraw
from the case, citing financial burdens.

"I'm a hostage," Stein told the Chicago Tribune.  He said he has
advanced more than $600,000 in litigation costs and time for the
plaintiffs, who have not paid fees as agreed in a contract.

The bank also opposed Stein's requests, saying in court documents that
such a move would further delay the lawsuit and would damage its
defense.

"It's taken almost four years to arrive at the facts of this case. We
think it would be inappropriate for him to withdraw as we approach a
resolution," said Doug Tillett, spokesman for the Chicago Fed.

The suit was filed in 1998, alleging that the bank excluded African-
American employees from promotions to managerial jobs, a claim the bank
has denied

The suit asserts that black employees comprised about 30% of the bank's
workforce but held only about 6% of the bank's highest non-officer-
level positions.

The suit was filed on behalf of African-Americans employed by the bank
between Feb. 26, 1996, and the present who are not managers - a class
that numbers 700 to 1,200 people.

Stein originally sought compensatory damages of $50 million to $100
million for a proposed class of more than 2,000 current and former
employees.

However, Hibbler last year limited the nature of the allegations and
the time period covered, it cut the class size roughly in half, and the
damages sought also fell by half, Stein said.

A primary issue about whether the court should allow the plaintiffs to
enter into evidence their expert reports remains unresolved.

The bank has considered the reports "unreliable" and has asked the
court to exclude them.

Stein has opposed the bank's motion to exclude the reports.


FLORIDA: Motorists Sue Auto Emissions Program For Overcharging Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Supreme Court heard part of the lawsuit filed by a group of
motorists against the state's former auto emissions testing program,
claiming that they were overcharged for tests.

Florida started requiring emissions tests from motorists in the
counties of Duval, Broward, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and
Pinellas in 1991 because of air pollution problems.

The program required motorists to pay $10 and pass tailpipe tests to be
able to register their cars. The owners were also required to make
repairs and return if they failed the tests.

Florida legislators abolished the tests last year due to mounting
questions over its effectiveness and rising unpopularity with
motorists, who disliked waiting for tests and paying the $10 fee.

Jacksonville lawyer Alan Wachs filed the suit in 1997 on behalf of
millions of motorists who paid the fees.  The suit was originally
lodged in Jacksonville, and later moved to Tallahassee.

The suit asserts that in other states, it costs less than $6 to test
each car and that the money went into the operations of the Department
of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which oversees such things as the
Florida Highway Patrol and driver's license offices.

Critics have questioned the system, saying that it created an
"unconstitutional tax" by collecting too much for tests, and using the
extra money to pay for unrelated statewide programs.

Rep. Jim Fuller, who led efforts to end the program, says "Absolutely
the state was making money off emissions testing -- absolutely."

The state has contended in court documents that it could set the fees
at $10, if it thought that contractors would charge nearly that much to
test the cars.

The state also belied the allegations that it violated the Florida
Constitution by spending the money on programs in other parts of the
state.

In court documents, the state asserts "While appearing local in nature,
the function of government here in general is to contain and stop the
spread of harmful emissions."

The 1st District Court of Appeal rejected part of the lawsuit dealing
with fees collected from 1994 to 1998, upholding the state's argument
that motorists should have sought refunds through an administrative
process at the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles instead
of going to court.

The Florida Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold the part of the
lawsuit that seeks refunds for tests from 1994 to 1998. A decision in
favor of the motorist will send that part to a Circuit Court in
Tallahassee for trial.

Another part of the case, dealing with fees collected from 1998 the end
of the program last year, is already pending in that circuit court.

The case does not deal with fees charged from 1991 to 1993 because the
motorists' attorneys were legally barred from going back that far in
seeking refunds.

>From 1994 to 2000, however, the attorneys point to a revenue analysis
that indicates the state might have taken in an extra $92 million from
the program.


FLORIDA: AAPD Sues After Purchase of "Inaccessible" Voting Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) has filed a
class action in the US District Court in Jacksonville, Florida against
Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris and the Duval County
Supervisor of Elections.

The AAPD commenced the suit on behalf of all disabled voters in Duval
County seeking that they be ensured the right to cast direct, secret
and confirmable ballots in all elections.

The suit arose after the county decided to purchase 300 new voting
machines.  According to the suit, only four machines are accessible to
voters with disabilities and those machines, if purchased, will be
located at election headquarters.

The suit alleges that the purchase of the "inaccessible" machines was a
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and a violation of the
Florida Constitution that guarantees each citizen the right to a
"direct and secret vote."

Jim Dickson, AAPD vice president, says that they have worked for years
to get adequate voting access, but were told that it was too expensive.

He asserts, "Why.is Duval County discriminating against disabled voters
by replacing old inaccessible voting equipment with new inaccessible
voting equipment?"

Attorney for the plaintiffs J. Douglas Baldridge says "Election
officials have the opportunity to ensure fair voting procedures for
disabled voters in Duval County.The lawsuit filed today is about doing
the right thing."

The state department currently authorizes the purchase of two types of
voting systems - optical scan and touch-screen.

Optical scan voting systems do not allow voters with visual or manual
impairments to cast a direct and secret ballot, while the touch-screen
system is accessible to the visually impaired only when modified with
voice capability. With other modifications, the touch-screen system can
be made accessible for voters with manual impairments. Duval County is
considering the purchase of no more than four touch-screen machines.


FORD MOTOR: Analysis Shows Older Workers, Men Receive Lower Ratings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A statistical analysis of Ford Motor Company's performance evaluation
system showed that older workers received lower grades on their
evaluations than younger workers, and fewer women than men received the
lowest grades.

Attorney James Fett, who is representing the plaintiffs, presented
these statistics put together by statistician Malcolm Cohen to the
court in the discrimination suit against the Company.

The Company faces two class action and seven individual lawsuits by
current and former managers, who claim they were denied promotions or
were terminated because of their age or for being white males.

Under the Performance Management Process, employees were graded A, B,
or C. Those receiving a C could lose bonuses and raises, and two
consecutive C grades could mean dismissal. Initially, at least 10
percent of employees were to be graded C, but that later was lowered to
5 percent.

The Company later said it would discontinue its 18-month-old system of
evaluating about 18,000 managers and replace the letter system with
three designations: top achiever, achiever, and improvement required.

There would also be no fixed percentages for the number of employees
receiving each classification.


Cohen showed two charts that together show that as the age of Ford
employees increased, the percentage of lower grades also rose.

Cohen's first chart shows .9% of those under the age of 30 received a
C, the lowest grade, while 2% of those aged 35-39, 6.2% of those 45-49,
and 28.2% of workers aged 60-64 received C's.

Another chart shows 3.8% of women evaluated in 2000 received C grades,
while C grades were given to 7.8% percent of the men.

Company spokeswoman Anne Gattari refuted the figures, saying "These raw
numbers are meaningless and in fact the court acknowledged when it
ruled the statistics could be released.that the raw data in question
are open to question and spinning."

Gattari said the company considers its evaluation system is fair and
unbiased. "These people have very different job responsibilities and
work histories. You have to consider all these variables before you get
a truthful analysis."


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Cohen Milstein Files C.D. CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (Nasdaq:GENI)
securities from December 21, 1999 through and including September 25,
2001.

The complaint, pending in the United States District Court for the
Central 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 concocted a scheme to provide
financial favors to financial analysts in exchange for analysts issuing
false positive reports to the public regarding the Company.

These reports caused plaintiff and other members of the class to
purchase common stock at artificially inflated prices.

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


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Informatica Corporation (NASDAQ:
INFA) securities between April 28, 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) Soundview Technology Group, Inc.,

     (4) First Albany Corporation,

     (5) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (6) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (7) Gaurav S. Dhillon, and

     (8) Diaz H. Nesamoney

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 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
2,750,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16 per
share.

In September 2000, the Company commenced a secondary public offering of
2,500,000 of Company shares of common stock at an offering price of $85
per share.

The Company filed registration statements with the SEC in connection
with the offerings, each of which incorporated a prospectus, which were
allegedly materially false and misleading because each failed to
disclose:

     (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 Company shares to those
         customers in the offering in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices.

For more 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: INFA@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


INTERNET CAPITAL: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a securities class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Internet Capital Group, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ICGE) between August 4, 1999 and May 9, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against:
     
     (1) Internet Capital Group Inc.,

     (2) Walter W. Buckley, III, President and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (3) Robert E. Keith, Jr., Chairman,

     (4) Kenneth A. Fox, director,

     (5) David Gathman, director,

     (6) Julian Brodsky, director,

     (7) Michael Forgash, director,

     (8) Thomas Gerrity, director,

     (9) Scott Gould, director,

    (10) Merrill Lynch, Pierrce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

    (11) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

    (12) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and

    (13) Lehman Brothers, Inc.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The suit alleges that the defendants have a duty of full, corrective
and timely disclosure with regard to the sale of stock in the initial
public offering and secondary offering.

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's initial public offering
and secondary offering with regard to the commissions reaped by the
underwriter defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, a failure to inform
investors that the underwriters solicited and received additional,
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors
substantial blocks of shares issued in connection with the initial
public offering.

This omission continued through and after the time of the secondary
offering of Company stock.

During the class period, Company stock lost more than 99% of its value
with share price dropping to a low of $1.21 after reaching a class
period high in excess of $200.

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


INTERSIL HOLDING: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf all persons who acquired Intersil Holding Corporation (NASDAQ:
ISIL) securities between February 25, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (1) Gregory L. Williams,

     (2) Daniel J. Heneghan,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for
issuing a registration statement and prospectus that contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The prospectus was issued in connection with the Company IPOand was
allegedly false and misleading because it failed to disclose:

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

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

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


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged
or otherwise acquired Keynote Systems, Inc. (NasdaqNM:KEYN) stock
between September 24, 1999 and August 15, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against:

     (1) Keynote Systems, Inc.

     (2) Umang Gupta, Chief Executive Officer,

     (3) John Flavio, Chief Financial Officer,

The suit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder.

The suit alleges the defendants, at the time of the Company's IPO and
secondary offering, violated the federal securities laws by failing to
disclose to investors that at least one of the lead underwriters of
offerings had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriter FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated Company
shares to customers at the IPO price of $14.00 per share.

To receive the allocations at $14.00, the underwriters' brokerage
customers allegedly had to agree to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

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

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits
by buying Company stock at the $14.00 IPO price and then selling it
later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high
as $28.00 during the first day of trading.

The complaint further alleges that the Company was able to price its
secondary offering at the artificially high price of $105.00 per share
due to the continuing effects of the foregoing violations.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the underwriters required their customers
to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions.

These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the
fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her
IPO stock allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because the prospectuses distributed to investors and the
registration statements contained material misstatements regarding the
commissions that the underwriters derived from the IPO.

These filings also failed to disclose the additional commissions and
"laddering" scheme discussed above.

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


LITTLE CAESAR: $350 Million Settlement In Franchisee Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
The 150th District Court for Bexar County, Texas approved an estimated
$350 million settlement agreement between Little Caesar Enterprises,
Detroit and 250 of its franchisees.

The Company, also the nation's fourth largest pizza chain, and Little
Caesar National Advertising Program were named as defendants in the
class action suit.

Under the settlement, the Company will:

     (1) eliminate franchisee contributions (4% of their gross
         revenues) to the national advertising fund;

     (2) create marketing, operations and other committees and
         components common to franchise restaurant systems;

     (3) recognize the independent franchisee organization formed
         without official franchisor involvement;

     (4) forgive $14 million in franchisee debt; and

     (5) create various food and nonfood product and price standards.

"This is nothing less than a complete restructuring of the relationship
between Little Caesar and its franchisees," said Michael Caddell of
Caddell & Chapman, Houston, lead counsel for the franchisees.

He added that the settlement will take monopoly supplier status from
the franchisor and help stores be more competitive with larger pizza
chains.

The Company has said that the agreement would create a better
relationship with their franchisees.

The Company is in the process of selling off hundreds of units to
franchisees, after sales shrunk from more than $60 million in its mid-
1990s heyday to $5.3 million last year, and only $2.1 million in the
first eight months of 2001.

The company has shrunk or halted ad agency relationships over the past
few years, and has been without an agency of record since June 2000.

An attorney for the franchisees pegged the value of the settlement at
$350 million over 10 years, but company officials said the figure was a
gross exaggeration.


NEXTCARD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of NextCard, Inc (Nasdaq: NXCD) securities
between March 30, 2000 and October 30, 2001, inclusive.

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

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

Specifically, the suit alleges that beginning in March 2000, the
Company claimed that its wholly owned banking division was "well-
capitalized" as that term is understood under regulations of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

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

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

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

When NextCard revealed on October 31, 2001, that:

     (1) it's banking division was in fact "significantly
         undercapitalized";

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

     (3) it had inadequately characterized its true credit losses,

the stock collapsed - wiping out 84% of market value in just one day.

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


NORTHPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Northpoint Communications Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:
NPNT) common stock between May 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company, and certain of its officers
and 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, Northpoint commenced an initial public offering of
15,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $24
per share.

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

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

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

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

For 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


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges S.D. FL Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Noven
Pharmaceuticals Inc., (NASDAQ:NOVN) between March 27, 2001 and November
1, 2001 inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, against the Company and:

     (1) Robert C. Strauss, President, Co-Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) James B. Messiry, Chief Financial Officer and

     (3) Steven Sablotsky, Co-Chairman and Director

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between March 27, 2001 and November 1, 2001.

Throughout the class period, Noven publicly touted two of its women's
hormone replacement products and represented that sales of these agents
would be substantial.

These statements, as alleged in the complaint, were materially false
and misleading because by November 13, 2000, defendants knew that
Novartis Pharma AG, its exclusive marketing agent in Europe, was not
aggressively marketing the Company's two hormone drugs, and that
Novartis was instead marketing its own competing drug, Estraderm.

On August 2, 2001, Noven issued a press release, which only partially
revealed the truth, stating that sales to Novartis were weaker than
analysts and investors had been led to believe.

In response, the Company's stock price plunged by 43%, to close at
$18.98 on August 3, 2001. Subsequently, on November 1, 2001, the
Company issued a press release which revealed, for the first time,
that:

     (i) Novartis had its own hormone-replacement system and would not
         be converting to the Company's product;

    (ii) that Novartis had excess-inventories of the Company's
         products; and

   (iii) that, as a result, the Company's European sales would decline
         substantially in the fourth quarter of 2001 and 2002.

In response to this announcement, Noven's stock price fell by 33% to
$14.89.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone number: (800) 320-5081 or contact Kenneth J. Vianale or Maya
Saxena by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486
by Phone: (561) 361-5000 by Email: novencase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Kaplan Kilsheimer Commences Nevada Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Purchasepro.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: PPRO) securities
between July 20, 2000 and April 26, 2001 inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for District of
Nevada, charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants made
false and misleading representations regarding the financial and
business prospects of the Company.

As a result of defendants' alleged false statements,
misrepresentations, and omissions, the price of Company securities was
artificially inflated during the class period.

In fact, the Company's securities closed as high as $44.95 on September
22, 2000, and were maintained at an artificially inflated level until
the Company disclosed its dismal financial condition on or about April
25, 2001.

These disclosures caused the stock price of the Company to plummet
approximately 35% in one day from $6.22 to $4.05 on April 25, 2001, on
volume of over 11 million shares.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox or Adam Walsh by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (800) 290-
1952 or (212) 687-1980 by Fax: (212) 687-7714 by E-mail address:
mail@kkf-law.com or visit the firm's Website: www.kkf-law.com


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of WestPoint Stevens Inc. (NYSE: WXS) common stock
during the period between Feb. 10, 1999 and Oct. 10, 2000.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that to boost Company stock in February and April
1999, defendants caused the Company to report better-than-expected 4thQ
98 and 1stQ 99 results.

The Company also assured investors and analysts that:

     (1) its business remained extremely strong;

     (2) demand for all of its products was good;

     (3) its inventories were under control;

     (4) it remained postured to achieve revenue and EPS growth of 5%
         and 20%, respectively, going forward;

     (5) it was increasing its 1999 and 2000 EPS forecasts to $1.82-
         $1.85 and $2.10-$2.20, respectively.

Based on these better-than-expected 1st Quarter 1999 results and
defendants' positive commentary on Company business, the Company's
stock advanced to its class period high of $37-9/16 from $25-3/8.

When the Company reported its 2nd and 3rd Quarter 1999 results, it
again assured investors that its business was very strong. It also told
investors that while its inventories had increased, especially towels,
the increased towel inventory did not pose any significant risk of loss
because it was basic solid colored goods with core value.

The Company continued to forecast strong revenue and EPS growth for the
balance of 1999 and 2000, including 2000 EPS of $2.10-$2.20.

In June 2000, defendants announced that:

     (i) the Company's Eight-Point Program would ensure strong
         performance in the future,

    (ii) momentum was building for strong prospects throughout 2000;
         
   (iii) inventory was now on target to below $400 million by year-end;

    (iv) the Company was still on track to report EPS of $2.08+ and
         $2.40 in 2000 and 2001, respectively.

As a result, Company stock stabilized in the $10-$15 range through the
remainder of the class period.

However, by late September 2000, defendants knew that it would be
impossible for them to continue to conceal the severe deterioration in
the Company's business any longer.

They also knew that once the Company reported its 3rd Quarter 2000
results, it would be apparent to the market how horrible the Company
was actually performing and the stock would collapse.

In an attempt to cause the stock to make a "soft landing" for what they
knew would be horrible 2000 results, defendants announced that 3rd
Quarter 2000 results would be flat with 3rd Quarter 1999 results. In
the same press release in which the Company also announced a new
licensing agreement with Disney.

Company stock declined only slightly on this news to $11-9/16 due to
defendants' positive statements.

In October 2000, the Company revealed that 3rd Quarter 2000 sales would
actually decline 3% from the prior year, with earnings of only $0.55-
$0.60 per share, lower than prior guidance.

On this news, Company stock declined to below $9 per share.

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

                              *********


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  * * *