CAR_Public/011115.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Thursday, November 15, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 224

                         Headlines


BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Deaths Due To Faulty Dialyzers in IL
COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued For RICO Violations, Breach Of Contract in FL
CREDIT CARDS: Asks Court To Reconsider Antitrust Suit Certification
ENRON CORPORATION: Lawyers Say Earnings Restatement Sign of Deceit

ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit
ENRON CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit
FAIRMARKET INC.: Underwriters' Practices Draw S.D. NY Securities Suit
FISCHER PORTER: $4.5M Pennsylvania Securities Suit Settlement Reached
NESCO INC.: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. Oklahoma

NETEASE.COM: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
PARTSBASE.COM: Marc S. Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. Florida
PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Initiates S.D. New York Securities Suit
PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
QUALCOMM INC.: Former Employees Sue For Labor Violations in S.D. CA

RACIAL PROFILING: Troopers Respond To ACLU Racial Profiling Billboard
RACING CHAMPIONS: Sued For Unfair Trade Practices Law Violations in CA
REDBACK NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ROBOTIC VISION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In Massachusetts
ROWE.COM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suits in S.D. New York

SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
SECURE COMPUTING: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in N.D. CA
TIDEL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Unfair Business Practices In Texas
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Wrapped Up in WV Smokers Suit

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TYSON FOODS: 10 National Law Firms To Join Grand Lake Pollution Suit
UNITED INSURANCE: Stockholders Sue For Securities Act Violations in TX
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Suits Allege Personal Injuries From Phone Use
VIADOR INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

WEST CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Suit Due To Ohio Marketing Programs
XOMA LTD.: Rosen Law Investigates For Possible Securities Violations


                         *********


BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of BackWeb Technologies Ltd.
(NASDAQ:BWEB) between June 8, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

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

In June 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 5.5
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $12 per
share.

In connection therewith, BackWeb filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC, which 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 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 Tzivia Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983
(toll free) or 1-212-687-7230 by Fax: 1-212-490-2022 or by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Deaths Due To Faulty Dialyzers in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth B. Moll and Associates Ltd. filed the first U.S. class action
lawsuit against Baxter International Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

The suit, filed on behalf of all patients globally who have died using
Baxter's dialysis products, also named Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing
Co. (better known as 3M).

3M produced the fluid used to check the filters for leaks.  John
Cornwell, a spokesman for St. Paul, Minnesota-based 3M, declined to
comment on the litigation.

The suit was filed against the Company relating to its October 18
recall of its A and AF series dialyzers, which help cleanse blood
toxins in those suffering from kidney failure.

The A and AF series were part of the Company's acquisition of Althin
Medical AB in March 2000.  Another line of dialyzers called AX was
discontinued last February.

The law firm said 56 people have died following the use of the filters,
including:

     (1) 23 in Croatia,

     (2) 15 in Spain,

     (3) 7 in Taiwan,

     (4) 5 in Germany,

     (5) 4 in the United States, and

     (6) 2 in Columbia

According to published reports, a total of 23 people died in Croatia,
but two deaths were found unrelated to dialysis equipment use.  
Attorney Kenneth Moll, who filed the suit, said he believes the number
of deaths could be much higher.

In a Reuters interview, Moll said "One of the driving forces of this
lawsuit was to protect foreign consumers as well as American consumers
of this product."

Baxter spokeswoman Lisa Scheff said that they were fully expecting the
suits and that the Company doesn't comment on any details about
litigation.

The Company has said it has cooperated with all investigations and has
said that in many cases it has not received adequate clinical
information to complete its investigations.

In addition to the October recall, Baxter on Nov. 5 said it planned to
stop making the filters, which were produced at its plant in Ronneby,
Sweden.

A judge must rule on whether cases can be consolidated and receive
class-action status. If certified, Moll believes the class may include
up to 900,000 plaintiffs.

However, last week Baxter said fewer than 10 percent of the recalled
series A and AF dialyzers were exposed to the fluid
perfluorohydrocarbon, that 3M produces.

By those calculations, the total class would be fewer than 90,000. The
Baxter spokeswoman said the recall was for a total of 200,000
dialyzers.

Separately, in Spain the government of the region of Valencia has asked
hospitals to withdraw infusion tubes made by Baxter following the
discovery that the rubber on a batch of the tubes in the region had an
unusual appearance.

The tubes are used to introduce drugs intravenously. A Baxter spokesman
said the appearance was due to a reaction among the chemical compounds
used in chemotherapy and the rubber made by Baxter.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued For RICO Violations, Breach Of Contract in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare provider Coventry Health Care, Inc. (NYSE:CVH) was named as
one of the defendants in an amended class action complaint pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division.

The suit was filed by a group of health care providers against the
Company and 11 other defendants in the managed care field, alleging
multiple violations of:

     (1) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),

     (2) prompt pay statutes in certain states, and

     (3) breaches of contract for failure to pay claims

Coventry labeled the suit allegations "without merit" and stated its
intent to defend their position vigorously in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


CREDIT CARDS: Asks Court To Reconsider Antitrust Suit Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit card companies, Mastercard International, Inc. and Visa USA,
Inc. asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its
decision granting class certification to the consolidated antitrust
class action filed against them by major U.S. retailers.

The suit arose from several complaints commenced in October 1996 by
several U.S. merchants including:

     (1) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

     (2) Sears Roebuck & Co., Inc.,

     (3) The Limited Inc. and

     (4) Safeway, Inc.

The suits uniformly challenged MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and
a similar Visa rule), which ensures universal acceptance for consumers
by requiring merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for
payment every validly presented MasterCard card.

Plaintiffs claim violations of U.S. Federal Antitrust Laws because both
Companies unlawfully have tied acceptance of debit cards to acceptance
of credit cards.

The merchants desire the ability to reject off-line, signature-based
debit transactions (for example, MasterCard card transactions) in favor
of other payment forms, including on-line, PIN-based debit transactions
(for example, Maestro or regional ATM network transactions) which
generally impose lower transaction costs for merchants.

The suits claim that both companies have conspired to monopolize what
they characterize as the point-of-sale debit card market, thereby
suppressing the growth of regional networks such as ATM payment
systems.

The suits also allege that the plaintiff class has been forced
to pay unlawfully high prices for debit and credit card transactions as
a result of the alleged tying arrangement and monopolization practices.

There are related consumer class actions pending in two state courts
that have been stayed pending developments in this matter.

In February 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which both Companies subsequently appealed to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last month, a three-judge panel affirmed the lower court decision by a
two-to-one majority.

As of this date, argument date for summary judgment and trial date has
been not yet been set.


ENRON CORPORATION: Lawyers Say Earnings Restatement Sign of Deceit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers suing Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) for securities violations
say the Company's restatement last week of more than four years of
earnings is a clear sign that it misled investors.

Arthur Stock of Berger and Montague PC says "Enron restating its
earnings is certainly going to help our case. It demonstrates that in
their opinion their earnings were false when initially published."

10 law firms filed securities suits against the Company, saying it
deceived investors by issuing by false and misleading statements or
concealing adverse information, causing shares to be artificially
inflated.

The suits name Enron and these defendants:

     (1) Kenneth Lay, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO and

     (3) Andrew Fastow, a former Chief Financial Officer

Enron further damaged its reputation with investors last week, when it
reduced earnings from 1997 to 2000 by $591 million, and restated its
earnings for the first two quarters of 2001.

A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Tuesday revealed
that Lay could walk away with more than $80 million if the acquisition
by Dynegy closes this year.

Law firm Cauley Geller Bowman and Coates LLP filed a new lawsuit since
Enron restated its results, changing the class period originally
January 18,2000 to October 17,2001.

The firm expanded the class period to include investors who bought
Company stock from January 18,1999 to November 8,2001.

The firms says "The effect of the restatement was dramatic.Enron
insiders disposed of over $73 million of their personally held Enron
common stock to unsuspecting investors."

The firm further said selling of Company stock by key executives was
"unusual and suspicious given its timing," as Lay sold $11.2 million
worth of shares during the period, and Skilling sold $6.41 million.

"People who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars are naturally
angry," Stock said. "It is expected in this type of situation."


ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP expanded the class period in
the securities suit filed on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corporation
("Enron") (NYSE:ENE) common stock to include stock purchased between
October 19, 1998 and November 7, 2001.

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

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued
favorable but false financial statements and made false and misleading
statements about Enron's business.

As a result of these allegedly false statements, the Company's stock
traded as high as $90.75. Defendants took advantage of this artificial
inflation, selling 7.3 million shares of their stock for proceeds of
$434 million.

It was subsequently revealed that Enron would be incurring losses of $1
billion for certain of its divisions. Last November 8, 2001, prior to
the markets opening, the Company announced it was restating its results
for 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, and the first two quarters of 2001 to
correct for errors which had inflated its net income by $591 million in
those years and that audit reports for those years should not be relied
upon.

The impact of the restatement was enormous. Upon these disclosures,
Company stock dropped to as low as $8.20 before closing at $8.41 on
November 8, 2001, some 91% below the Class Period high of $90.75.

For more information, contact William Lerach, Steven Schulman or Samuel
H. Rudman by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 800/320-5081 by E-mail:
wsl@milberg.com or Enroncase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.milberg.com
                  

ENRON CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a new securities fraud class action
against Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE), three of its officers and Arthur
Andersen, the auditors for Enron.

The action is pending in the US District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of Enron's common stock
during the period from October 22, 1998 through November 8, 2001,
inclusive.

This action expands the class period alleged in a previous complaint
filed by Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and names Arthur Andersen, the
Company's outside auditors, as an additional defendant.

The expansion of the class action litigation is based upon Enron's
disclosure on November 8 that it was restating its financial statements
for the years 1997 through 2000 and the first two quarters of 2001, and
that the previously issued financial statements should no longer be
relied upon.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and that defendants' wrongful conduct artificially inflated the price
of Company common stock during the class period.

For more information, contact Thomas G. Shapiro or Liz Hutton by Mail:
75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax:
(617) 439-0134 or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.


FAIRMARKET INC.: Underwriters' Practices Draw S.D. NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet software provider FairMarket, Inc. (NASDAQ:FAIM) faces several
class action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Scott Randall,

     (2) John Belchers,

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

     (4) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of FairMarket's common
stock between March 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The suits allege that certain underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering solicited and received excessive and undisclosed fees
and commissions in connection with that offering.

The lawsuits further allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement and prospectus in
connection with the initial public offering which failed to accurately
disclose the amount and nature of the commissions and fees paid to the
underwriter defendants.

FairMarket said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it is reviewing the allegations in the complaints.


FISCHER PORTER: $4.5M Pennsylvania Securities Suit Settlement Reached
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fischer and Porter, Inc. agreed to settle for $4.5 million a securities
class action filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania on behalf of the Company's shareholders at the close of
its business in September 30,1993.

The suit names as defendants, Fischer and Porter, and two of its former
Class B stockholders, who were also Directors and Executive Officers,
Jay H. Tolson and E. Joseph Hochreiter.

The suit challenged the validity of the warrants issued to the two
named individuals in connection with their conversion of Class B Stock
into Common Stock.  

In March 1994, Fischer and Porter was informed that the plaintiff would
file an amended complaint asserting a class action and a derivative
claim against the individual defendants.  

Under the amended complaint, the Company would be named only as a
nominal defendant on the derivative claims and no claim will be
asserted against it for any wrongdoings alleged in this action.

A hearing is set for December 13, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Alan
M. Rubenstein to determine:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the class action for
         $4,500,000 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.
     


NESCO INC.: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Nesco, Inc. common stock
(NASDAQ:NESC) between April 26, 2000 and August 16, 2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending in in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, against the Company and:

     (1) Eddy L. Patterson,

     (2) James Howell, and

     (3) Larry Johnson

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
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
quarterly and annual financial results for 2000 and its quarterly
financial results for the first quarter of 2001.

At the close of the class period, Nesco restated its revenues for 2000
and the first quarter of 2001 to adjust for $3.65 million in overbooked
sales.

The overbooked sales, which were the result of accounting
irregularities, forced the company to reduce its earnings for 2000 to
$588,000, or 6 cents a share, from the previously reported $2.85
million, or 31 cents per share.

The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements the price of Nesco common stock was artificially inflated
throughout the class period.

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 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.rabinlaw.com


NETEASE.COM: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of NetEase.com, Inc. ("NetEase")
(NASDAQ:NTESE) from between July 3, 2000 and August 31, 2001,
inclusive.

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

     (1) King F. Lai,

     (2) William Lei Ding,

     (3) Helen Haiwen He,

     (4) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated,

     (5) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,

     (6) Chase Securities, Inc.,

     (7) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and

     (8) UBS Warburg LLC.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
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
thereunder.

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between July 3, 2000 and August 31, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Nesco's common stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, on May 8, 2001, the Company
disclosed that it had discovered that $1 million in contracts had been
improperly reported as revenue and as a result, it would delay
announcing its financial results for the first quarter of 2001.

Subsequently, on June 11, 2001, Nesco announced that the revenue
overstatement appeared to affect its full year 2000 financial
statements and the amount of the overstatement would be approximately
$3 million.

Then, on August 31, 2001, the Company finally revealed the full extent
of the overstatement and announced that it would be restating all of
its year 2000 financial statements because $4.3 million in revenue had
been overstated.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus and registration statement
issued in connection with the initial public offering of the Nesco's
ADSs were materially false and misleading because they contained
artificially inflated financial results for the first quarter of 2000.

Following the IPO, defendants issued press releases announcing the
Company's quarterly 2000 and full year 2000 financial results which
were materially false and misleading because they overstated the
Company's financial performance.

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


PARTSBASE.COM: Marc S. Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of PartsBase.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRTS) publicly
traded common stock during the period from the Initial Public Offering
on March 22, 2000 through April 25, 2000.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, alleges that the IPO prospectus filed by the
Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and distributed to
investors was false and misleading.

The prospectus allegedly failed to disclose, among other things, the
fact that PartsBase had approximately 3,000 paying members.

The complaint alleges that the Company misled investors by representing
in the prospectus that it had more than 13,000 paying members.

The complaint also alleges that this misrepresentation, along with
others specified in the complaint, allowed the Company to inflate the
price of the stock in the IPO well beyond its true value

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

PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Initiates S.D. New York Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired Preview Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVW)
securities between December 7, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Vincent Pluvinage,

     (2) G. Bradford Solso,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Dain Rauscher Incorporated, and

     (5) Soundview Technology Group, Inc.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
registration statement and prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

The prospectus was issued in connection with Preview's initial public
offering of 3,800,000 shares of common stock at $21.00 per share that
was completed on or about December 7, 1999.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose:

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

    (ii) the agreement between the underwriters and certain of its
         customers whereby the underwriters would allocate shares in
         the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase Company shares in the aftermarket 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
    

PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Psi Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PSIT) securities between March 16, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against PSI, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Company common stock pursuant to the March
16, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated PSI shares to customers at the IPO
price.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, the underwriters' brokerage customers allegedly had to
agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively
higher prices.

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

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

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

QUALCOMM INC.: Former Employees Sue For Labor Violations in S.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications company Qualcomm Inc. faces a putative class action
now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

Four former employees initially filed the suit in the California
Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
themselves and other former Company employees who were terminated in
April 1999.

The suit states several causes of action:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) age discrimination,

     (3) violation of Labor Code Section 200,

     (4) violation of Labor Code Section 970,

     (5) unfair business practices,

     (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress,

     (7) unjust enrichment,

     (8) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

     (9) declaratory relief, and

    (10) undue influence

In June 2000, the case was transferred from Los Angeles County Superior
Court to San Diego County Superior Court.

In July 2000, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, and discovery commenced.

In May 2001, the court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims except for
claims arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The court granted conditional class certification on the remaining
claims in July 2001, to be revisited by the court at the end of the
discovery period.

QualComm asserts that virtually all of the purported class of
plaintiffs received severance packages at the time of the termination
of their employment, in exchange for a release of claims, other than
federal age discrimination claims, against them.

The Company cannot assure that an unfavorable outcome of the dispute
would not have a material adverse effect on its operating results,
liquidity or financial position.

QualComm also asserted that the claims are without merit and stated its
intention to vigorously defend against the action.


RACIAL PROFILING: Troopers Respond To ACLU Racial Profiling Billboard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Responding to an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) billboard that
seeks plaintiffs for racial profiling cases, state troopers put up
their own highway signs listing a toll-free number for motorists to
cite helpful troopers.

Last month, the ACLU put up a billboard on the New Jersey Turnpike's
southbound spur showing a photograph of two minority men and the words
"Stopped or searched by the New Jersey State Police?"

The sign continues "They admit to racial profiling. You might win money
damages" and includes the ACLU's toll-free number.

The ACLU intensified its campaign after the state released records
showing that nearly half the drivers stopped by troopers on the
turnpike were minorities.

The report also stated that Blacks and Hispanics accounted for over 70%
of those arrested.

The ACLU has said that they mounted the advertising campaign to "stop
racial profiling once and for all" and that the ads are meant to find
potential racial profiling victims and bring new lawsuits against
police.

The ACLU is currently representing 16 plaintiffs in two lawsuits, one
filed in state court in 1997 and the other filed in federal court in
1999.

The ACLU lost a bid to certify the state court lawsuit as a class
action while a federal judge in Camden is considering the bid to
certify the 1999 lawsuit.

The campaign angered the New Jersey State Troopers.  Dennis Hallion,
president of the union representing non-commissioned officers says, "We
are not overly thrilled with the ACLU's campaign, but we chose to take
the high road, rather than the low road."

The first billboard was put up Tuesday near the ACLU sign while a
second billboard will be put up in Bordentown, about ten miles down the
turnpike.

Both signs say "Have you ever been helped by a New Jersey State
Trooper?" and list an existing state police department hotline for
motorists to report on trooper conduct.

The goal is to collect as many positive reports as possible "so we can
use them to help us in making our organization a better place to work,"
Hallion said.

Since 1999, the state has had a program to reform the state police and
end racial profiling.


RACING CHAMPIONS: Sued For Unfair Trade Practices Law Violations in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Racing Champions South, Inc. faces a consumer class action filed last
August 2000 in California state court.

The suit names several other sport cards manufacturers as defendants
and purports to include all US residents who purchased sports cards
manufactured, licensed, marketed, sold or distributed by any defendant
within a time period of up to four years.  

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the California unfair
trade practices and consumer protection laws by selling packs of sports
trading cards containing random assortments of varying values.  

In May 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

The defendants promptly asked the California Supreme Court for
permission to appeal the decision, but the court denied this in
September 2001.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend its
position, although no assurance can be given as to the outcome of this
matter.

The Company produces various recreational toys such as die-cast
replicas of cars and trucks that are three to eight inches in length,
Ertl agricultural vehicles (such as tractors), and American Muscle
vintage cars and trucks.

It also makes action figures, model kits, apparel and trading cards


REDBACK NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Redback Networks Inc.
(NASDAQ: RBAK) between May 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit, pending in in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, names as defendants:

     (1) Redback Networks, Inc.,

     (2) Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (4) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (5) Dennis L. Barsema, and

     (6) Geoffrey C. Darby.

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, Redback commenced an initial public offering of 2,500,000
of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $23 per share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

     (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which 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 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
      

ROBOTIC VISION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROBV)
common stock between January 27, 2000 and May 15, 2001.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, alleges that RVS and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that during the class period, the Company reported
materially false and misleading financial results for fiscal year 2000
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles.

In May 2001, before the market opened, RVS announced that it would be
restating its financial results for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2000 and for the three month period ended December 31, 2000 to correct
certain accounting errors involving the recognition of revenue at its
Acuity CiMatrix division.

As a result of defendants' alleged fraud, the Company's common stock
traded at artificially inflated levels throughout the class period.

In response to the shocking news that RVS' financial statements
required restatement, stock price lost almost 15% of its value in 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
      

ROWE.COM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suits in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf all persons who acquired Rowe.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROWE)
securities between March 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (1) Richard Rowe,

     (2) Louis Hernandez, Jr.,

     (3) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,

     (4) CIBC Oppenheimer Corp. and

     (5) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company, LLC

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
registration statement and prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

The prospectus was issued in connection with Rowe.com's initial public
offering of 3.1 million shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that
was completed on or about March 9, 1999.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose:

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

    (ii) the agreement between the underwriters and certain of its
         customers whereby the underwriters 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 details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643-
6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182
    

SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Scientific-Atlanta,
Incorporated (NYSE: SFA) between April 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Northern
District of Georgia against the Company, Wallace G. Haislip and James
F. McDonald.

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

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between April 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Specifically, throughout the class period, defendants issued materially
false and misleading information with regard to the financial results
of its third fiscal quarter.

For example, in a May Form 10-Q that was filed with the Securities &
Exchange Commission, defendants reported their financial results and
highlighted an increase in production capacity of set-tops.

In July 2001, defendants reported the Company's financial results for
the fiscal fourth quarter of 2001 and shocked the market by reporting a
21% decline in bookings from the previous year's fourth quarter.

This decline in bookings was attributable to, among other things, a
surplus in customer inventory levels, which defendants knew, or should
have known, at the time they filed the Company's Form 10-Q, making the
representations in the Form 10-Q regarding production capacity
materially false and misleading.

Additionally, the Company announced that it was revising its earnings
estimates for the first quarter of fiscal 2002.

The market reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive, as
Company shares plummeted by more than 34%, or $12.08, to close at $23
per share, on heavy trading volume.

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
   

SECURE COMPUTING: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Secure Computing Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit arose from several class actions commenced in April 1999
against SCC and certain or its present and former directors and
officers.

The suits were filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from November 10,1998 to March 31,1999.

The suits uniformly allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, because the defendants allegedly made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business condition and prospects.

The court later consolidated these actions.  SCC also filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated suit, which the court denied in August 2001.

Trial in the suit will commence on June 23,2003.

SCC believes that it has meritorious defenses to he suit and intends to
defend them vigorously.


TIDEL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Tidel Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATMS)
common stock during the period between April 6, 2000 and February 8,
2001, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, charges Tidel and certain of its
officers and directors of violating the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between April 6, 2000 and February 8, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period, the
Company falsely touted its sales of automated teller machines (ATMs) at
a "record" pace.

These materially false and misleading statements allowed Tidel to begin
trading on the Nasdaq national trading system, which would have been
impossible without the Company's false and misleading statements and
the consequent artificial inflation of the Company's stock price.

When the Company finally disclosed that its largest customer's orders
would be at "substantially reduced levels for the quarter ending March
31, 2001," Company stock price declined precipitously.

The lawsuit alleges that Tidel knew during the time period, but did not
disclose, that its largest customer was in the process of switching to
a competitor and reducing orders.

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


TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES:  Sued For Unfair Business Practices In Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet software provider Tippingpoint Technologies faces a consumer
class action lawsuit filed in Texas state court in Travis County, Texas
last July 2001.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased an Internet
appliance from the Company and subscribed to the Company's related
Internet service.

The complaint charges Tippingpoint with:

     (1) disseminating false and misleading advertisements;

     (2) engaging in unauthorized billing practices; and

     (3) failing to provide adequate technical and customer support and
         service with respect to the Company's Internet appliance and
         service business.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses available to
defend the suit vigorously.

Tippingpoint, however, said that in the event of an adverse outcome in
the suit, their financial position and prospects could be harmed.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Wrapped Up in WV Smokers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Closing arguments in the unprecedented class action filed by healthy
West Virginia smokers against four major tobacco companies will
commence today.

The suit was filed against RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown and
Williamson and Lorillard, accusing them of creating a "defective
product" and not exerting enough effort to create a safer cigarette.

The suit names as members of the class smokers who consume the
equivalent of a pack of cigarettes a day for at least five years and
have not been diagnosed with any smoking-related illness.

The suit alleges that cigarettes are a defective product that increased
their risk of developing serious diseases such as lung cancer, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disorder and emphysema.

They accused the Companies of "wanton and willful" disregard for public
health and want them to pay for a medical monitoring program that would
earlier detect the above smoking-related diseases.

The tests include a lung function test called spirometry and spiral
computed tomography scans.

When closing arguments are completed, six Ohio County jurors will be
asked to decide the fate of the first medical monitoring class action
lawsuit against "Big Tobacco" to make it to trial in the country.
  
Plaintiffs must satisfy the "burden of proof" involving four
allegations:

     (1) the companies acted in a tortious manner in the design,
         manufacturing and marketing of a defective product (the
         cigarette);

     (2) smoking cigarettes put class members at risk of developing
         serious, latent diseases;

     (3) risk necessitates periodic medical testing; and

     (4) the medical monitoring program proposed by the plaintiffs
         makes the early detection of certain diseases possible.

The jury must agree with all four points in order to find in favor of
the plaintiff, using as their guide evidence presented at their
disposal and the 33-page document from Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur
M. Recht that explains the jury's responsibilities.

In his closing argument, Charleston attorney, Scott Segal said the
defendants did not conduct their businesses as responsible companies
should.

He primarily alleged that the Companies "denied that smoking causes
disease and denied any responsibility for the illnesses and deaths that
are the result of cigarette smoking."

He also explained that in order to detect diseases early, medical
testing must be periodic and that experts agreed it is better to find a
disease at its earliest stages.

Lawyers for the defendants uniformly emphasized that the Companies
weren't negligent because cigarettes were "inherently risky" and that
the public has always been aware of the risks of smoking.

They also contended that the industry has done everything possible to
create a safer cigarette and pointed to several "safer" brands that
failed because "the public wouldn't buy them."

Lorillard attorney Bill Newbold asserted, "Mr. Segal said we tried to
'deny, deny, deny,' but no one in this case was ever misled. West
Virginians have known for a long time that cigarettes are dangerous."

RJ Reynolds lawyer Jeff Furr said the case is "all about medical
monitoring" but there has been a "complete failure of proof by the
plaintiffs on medical monitoring."

He said qualified physicians and public health organizations do not
find the plaintiffs' medical monitoring program to be "medically
necessary" and spirometry and spiral CT standing alone do not make the
early detection of lung cancer and COPD/emphysema possible.

He said a big issue only jurors can decide lies in the quality of the
expert witnesses, saying "The plaintiffs didn't bring a single doctor
who is going to tell you this program is in keeping with the standards
of care."

He also reiterated, "If you quit smoking before COPD is detected,
you'll never get it from smoking. (Experts) said no matter what the
result of spirometry is, you always say `stop smoking,' and you don't
need spirometry to say that."

Segal will present a rebuttal from the plaintiffs before the jury can
begin its deliberations.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commences a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Turnstone Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: TSTN) common
stock between January 31, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against Turnstone, 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 January 2000, Turnstone commenced an initial public offering of
3,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $29
per share.

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


TYSON FOODS: 10 National Law Firms To Join Grand Lake Pollution Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
10 national law firms, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Waterkeeper
Alliance, will assist Oklahoma property owners in the environmental
class action against Tyson Foods.

The owners accuse the Company of discharging millions of gallons of
wastewater from its Missouri processing plant directly into Elk River,
which flows from Missouri into Oklahoma and Grand Lake.

The owners also allege that the Company leached waste into the lake
after being used as fertilizer for farmers who contract with it to grow
chickens.

The resulting pollution brought foul odors, pieces of poultry, waste,
oil slicks, white foam and scum forming along the shoreline instead of
pristine and clear water.

The suit also states that property values in the area has been reduced
by 5% to 10% and the quality of life has deterioriated.

Chuck Shipley, counsel for the homeowners, welcomed the news, saying
"It's going to mean they can't outspend us.bringing in the legal heavy
hitters also means more depth in legal research."

Kennedy's Waterkeeper Alliance is a White Plains, N.Y., environmental
group that specializes in the protection and restoration of waterways.

His firm and nine others will enter their appearances in the case on
Tuesday, Shipley said.

Conner and Winters, along with the law firm of Senate President Pro
Tempore Stratton Taylor (D-Claremore) will represent Tyson.

Taylor said he could not comment on the allegations against Tyson,
referring questions to Conner & Winters.


UNITED INSURANCE: Stockholders Sue For Securities Act Violations in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
United Insurance Companies, Inc. has until November 25,2001 to file an
answer to the securities class action suit pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The consolidated suits arose from three complaints filed on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from February 10,1999
through December 9, 1999.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its executive officers with
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suits allege that the defendants filed disclosures with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that contained untrue statements of
material facts and/or failed to disclose all material facts relating to
the condition of the Company's credit card business.

In June 12, 2000, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint, amending, consolidating and supplementing the allegations
made in the original cases.

Last month, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the case,

The Company expects the discovery phase of the litigation to commence
shortly.

The Company has labeled the suit "without merit" and and intends to
continue to vigorously contest the allegations in the suit.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Suits Allege Personal Injuries From Phone Use
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications, Inc. faces several class actions along with
other telecommunications companies alleging personal injuries,
including brain cancer, from wireless phone use.

The suits include the following:

     (1) Christopher Newman, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., pending
         in U.S. District Court in Maryland,

     (2) Gibb Brower, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., pending in
         California Superior Court, San Diego, California,

     (3) Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., pending in Pennsylvania
         Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,

     (4) Gilliam, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., pending in New York
         Supreme Court, Bronx County,

     (5) Pinney, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., pending in Maryland
         Circuit Court, Baltimore County, and

     (6) Gimpelson et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Georgia Superior
         Court, Fulton County.

The suits, all of which have been removed to federal court, claim that
wireless phones were defective and unreasonably dangerous because the
defendants:

     (i) failed to include a proper warning about alleged adverse
         health effects;

    (ii) failed to encourage the use of a headset; and

   (iii) failed to include a headset with the phone.

Verizon believes it has strong defenses to assert in the proceedings
and that it is entitled to indemnification by handset manufacturers in
connection with these claims.

The Company, however, believes that an adverse outcome in the suits
could have a material effect on its results of operations, financial
conditions and prospects.


VIADOR INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Viador Inc.
(NASDAQ: VIAD.OB) between October 25, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

     (1) Stan X. Wang, CEO, President and director,

     (2) Raja H. Venkatesh, CFO,

     (3) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.,

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

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

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

Last October 25, 1999, Viador commenced an initial public offering of
4,000,000 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 with the SEC, which was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

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

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

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


WEST CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Suit Due To Ohio Marketing Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications company West Corporation (NASDAQ:WSTC) faces an
amended consumer class action commenced in January 2001 in the Court of
Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Brandy L. Ritt filed the suit initially against two of the Company's
clients in connection with the marketing of certain membership programs
offered by the Company's clients.

The suit alleges violations of:

     (1) Ohio's customer protection laws'

     (2) negligent misrepresentation,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) breach of contract,

     (5) unjust enrichment, and

     (6) civil conspiracy

West was only added as defendant when the suit was amended for the
third time in July 2001.  The class has not been certified to date.

The Company has denied the allegations in the suit and will mount a
vigorous defense against it.

Formerly West TeleServices, the company provides outsourced
teleservices, with 28 call centers and seven automated voice and data
centers. It also offers computerized call processing services and Web-
based services.


XOMA LTD.: Rosen Law Investigates For Possible Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm is investigating federal securities laws claims on
behalf of purchasers of XOMA Ltd. (Nasdaq: XOMA) common stock during
the period May 24, 2001 through October 4, 2001 including those persons
who purchased shares in or traceable to the Company's June 26, 2001
public offering of 3 million shares.

The Rosen Law Firm is investigating whether Xoma violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of alleged material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the expected filing date
for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of its psoriasis drug
Xanelim.

Specifically, beginning on May 24, 2001 and continuing throughout the
class period, the Company claimed that it expected to submit a
licensing application to the FDA by year-end or in the first quarter of
2002.

On October 4, 2001, Xoma disclosed that the FDA wanted it to conduct
additional tests to confirm that mass-produced Xanelim would be
equivalent to the drug used in clinical trials in light of the fact
that modifications had been made in the manufacturing process for the
material.

The requested additional tests have pushed back the expected FDA filing
date for Xanelim until at least Summer of 2002.

By leading the market to believe that it would file for FDA approval
for Xanelim no later than first quarter 2002, the Company was able to
sell over $43.0 million of stock to investors in a secondary public
offering on June 26, 2001.

When news of this setback hit the market, Company shares plunged from
their class period high of $17.06 to as low as $6.40 on October 5,
2001.

Investors who purchased Xoma shares during the class period have thus
suffered substantial losses in their investment.

For more information, contact Laurence Rosen by Phone: 866-767-3653
(toll-free) or by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com.



                              *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *