CAR_Public/011116.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


AUCTION HOUSES: Former CEO Says Taubman Conspired To Fix Reseller Fees
AVENTIS SA: NY Attorney General Files Heart Medication Antitrust Suit
ALABAMA: U.S. Supreme Court Declines Hearing Jefferson County Tax Case
ALABAMA: Elmore County Inmates Sue Due To Hazards Of Recycling Detail
APROPOS TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files S.D. NY Securities Suit

BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Law Firm To Re-file Suit After Earnings Restatement
CREDIT CARD: Mastercard, Visa Hit With Another Antitrust Suit in NY
DQE INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
ENRON CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Expands Class Period in Texas Suit
ENRON CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Expands Class Period in Texas Suit

ENRON CORPORATION: Schoengold Sporn Commences Derivative Suit in Texas
GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Mark McNair Alleges Securities Violations
INTEL CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
INTEL CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Lead Plaintiff Deadline In CA Suit Set For Nov. 30

NEXTCARD INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in California
OMNISKY CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ONI SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
PALM INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Mark McNair Sues For Fed'l Securities Violations
RADIO UNICA: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SANDSTAR FAMILY: Sued After Inmate Telemarketer Contacts Customer
SHOPKO STORES: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. WI
SIRIUS SATELLITE: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in Vermont

STATE FARM: Agrees To $45M Arizona Insurance Claims Suit Settlement
TERADYNE INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Massachusetts Securities Suit
TIDEL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. TX Securities Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Jury Rules In Favor Of Tobacco Companies in WV Suit
XCARE.NET: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York


                           *********


AUCTION HOUSES: Former CEO Says Taubman Conspired To Fix Reseller Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A former executive of top auction house Christie's testified that ex-
Sotheby's boss, A. Alfred Taubman, schemed to fix reseller fees in the
antitrust class action filed against the Detroit real estate magnate.

Former Christie's CEO, Christopher Davidge, showed a Manhattan federal
jury a key internal memo that he said was written by Christie's former
Chairman, Sir Anthony Tennant.

Tennant allegedly wrote the memo after he reportedly held secret
meetings with Taubman in April 1993 to take steps to reduce competition
between their auction houses.

The memo outlined the steps both firms should take to counteract
slumping profits.  However, the memo, while potentially damaging to
Taubman's case, did not mention his name.

Davidge also testified that he and Sotheby's counterpart Diana Brooks
were instructed by their bosses to develop a plan to carry out the
scheme that included establishing a non-negotiable commission scale
charged to sellers doing business with either auctioneer.

He added that it was decided that Christie's would be the first to
announce the new rates.

He allegedly met with Brooks at the John F. Kennedy Airport in March
1995 to review copies of the announcements that would be made to the
press and clients.

He said that Brooks read the statements and said the information was
consistent with discussions that they had held over the years.

Davidge said he then reported back to Tennant about the meeting with
Brooks and quoted Tennant as saying "That's good, excellent."

Davidge had earlier provided prosecutors with numerous internal
documents that prosecutors allege prove the price-fixing charges, after
he resigned from Christie's in 1999.

Taubman, one of the most influential figures in the art world, has
maintained his innocence.

His lawyers have said he would not throw away his reputation and years
of hard work by conspiring to fix prices and blamed Brooks, who pleaded
guilty to her role in the alleged scheme, alleging she agreed to
testify against Taubman to avoid a three-year prison term.

Sotheby's also pleaded guilty to an antitrust charge and agreed to pay
a $45 million fine. While Christie's has not been charged criminally,
both firms agreed to settle a customers' class-action case by paying a
total of $512 million.

During the six-year period of the alleged scheme, the two houses
charged sellers in the United States at least $400 million in
commissions.


AVENTIS SA: NY Attorney General Files Heart Medication Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical giant Aventis SA faces a $100 million antitrust class
action filed by New York's Attorney General, charging it with
conspiring to keep a generic version of a popular heart drug off the
market.

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed the suit on behalf of consumers in
New York, the District of Columbia and 15 other states against the
Company and Andrx Corporation.

The suit alleges that both companies schemed to keep a generic version
of Cardizem CD out of the market.

In an interview with Reuters, Spitzer said "We will not allow companies
to conspire and keep generic drugs off the shelves and unavailable to
consumers simply to increase their profits."


ALABAMA: U.S. Supreme Court Declines Hearing Jefferson County Tax Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear arguments in the
dispute over Jefferson County's occupational tax - thus ending, if not
putting to rest, the long battle as to the constitutionality of the
tax, the Associated Press recently reported

Former Lt. Governor Bill Baxley's law firm filed a class-action lawsuit
in 1992 to overturn the tax, claiming it was unfair and illegal.  The
tax includes exemptions for doctors, lawyers and others who pay state
license or business fees.

Baxley's firm asked the nation's high court to overturn the Alabama
Supreme Court, which had ruled that the county's 0.5 percent tax on
workers' incomes was unconstitutional.

"The exemptions built into the Jefferson County occupational tax are a
disgrace, whether they are lawful or not," said Joel Dillard, one of
Baxley's law partners.

"(The long fight) has cost us a bundle," said Dillard but he added, his
partners, if they had it to do over, would still file the lawsuit.

Opposition began when the County Commission enacted the tax in 1987.  A
city of Birmingham official filed a lawsuit, claiming the tax was
unconstitutional.  The Alabama Supreme Court upheld it in 1988.

In 1998, Clay County Circuit Judge John E. Rochester ruled the
exemptions unconstitutional.  The state Supreme Court in 2000 upheld
Rochester's ruling.

"It was clearly a valid tax," said attorney Bill Slaughter, who argued
the case for Jefferson County.  "I told you, when all of these useless,
meaningless cases were resolved by learned appellate judges, this would
be the outcome."


ALABAMA: Elmore County Inmates Sue Due To Hazards Of Recycling Detail
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Inmates at Elmore County Correctional Facility, Milbrook City filed a
class action suit alleging that they were exposed to dangerous diseases
while working at the facility's recycling center in Speigner.

The suit was commenced early this month in the U.S. District Court in
Montgomery, on behalf of about 200 inmates at the correctional
facility.

The suit names as defendants five correctional officers, warden Earnest
Harrelson and commissioner Michael Haley of the Alabama Department of
Corrections.

According to the suit, the inmates are assigned several tasks:

     (1) handling medical waste and other hazardous material by working
         on a garbage pickup detail;

     (2) picking up garbage from other correctional facilities and
         state agencies, including a health clinic at Auburn University
         Montgomery; and

     (3) sorting through the material at the correctional facility's
         recycle center

The inmates allege that these tasks forces them to handle used
hypodermic and intravenous, human feces, used gauze and bandages, test
tubes and bottles containing bacteria and other specimens.

The inmates say these dangerous medical wastes caused them to be
exposed to dangerous diseases, such as hepatitis and HIV.

Marion Chartoff, a staff attorney for the Atlanta-based Southern Center
For Human Rights, said that this detail was "involuntary".

John Ward, a former inmate, worked the recycling detail and has said he
was afraid for his safety. "They (guards) told me I would stay in
prison longer if I refused."

State Health Officer Donald Williamson also said that anyone handling
such medical waste items risks contracting HIV and hepatitis from
blood-borne pathogens.

He further stated that it is the responsibility of the Department of
Corrections to ensure that safety measures outlined by the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management should be followed.

If the Alabama Department of Corrections is forced to close the
recycling program, Millbrook City will have to spend about $6,000 per
year to remove the waste currently being handled by inmates.

Councilwoman Lisa Crumpton of the Millbrook City Council said that if
the City does have to haul its own waste away it will not include
hazardous materials.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Apropos Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: APRS) between February 17, 2000 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

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

In February 2000, Apropos commenced an initial public offering of 3.7
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $22 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:

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

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

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


BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Law Firm To Re-file Suit After Earnings Restatement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody plans to file a securities suit against
Brightpoint, Inc. (NASDAQ:CELL) after the Company announced that it
would restate its financial statements from 1998 to 2001.

The suit was first commenced in June 1999 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of purchasers of
Brightpoint, Inc. (NASDAQ:CELL) common stock.

The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the financial condition of the Company, including
material misrepresentations regarding the discontinuance of
Brightpoint's trading division.

After nearly two years of litigation, the court dismissed the
complaint.

The Company has disclosed that it will restate its financial statements
for 1998, 1999, 2000 and interim periods of 2001. This restatement is
primarily related to the financial condition and ultimate
discontinuance of Brightpoint's trading division - the same subject
matter as plaintiffs' prior complaint.

The restatement resulted from a subpoena issued by the Securities and
Exchange Commission and a subsequent review by the Company and its
independent auditors.

The restatement reconfirms the validity of the allegations made in
plaintiffs' original complaint. Plaintiffs anticipate moving the Court
for reconsideration based upon newly discovered evidence and/or filing
a new complaint on behalf of aggrieved shareholders.

For more information, contact Michael D. Braun by Phone: 888-388-4605
(toll-free) or by E-mail: mbraun@secfraud.com.


CREDIT CARD: Mastercard, Visa Hit With Another Antitrust Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Major credit card companies Mastercard International and Visa USA, Inc.
faces another antitrust class action filed in New York federal court by
companies - Ajax of Philadelphia and NuCity Publications.

The suit charged the Companies of restricting competition and unfairly
setting their fees too high for merchants accepting their cards and
claims triple damages from the networks, which are owned by US banks.

The suit increased pressure on the credit card issuers, coming a month
after a New York court ordered both Companies to stop their blocking
member banks from issuing rivals' cards.

Last month, the suit filed by retailers against the Companies was
allowed by a federal court to proceed as a class action suit.

The above suit accused the card networks of using their dominance in
credit cards to force merchants to also accept their allegedly costly
debit cards.

Visa USA, Inc. called the New York suit "groundless" in a press
statement, saying it was just attempting to "piggy-back" on other anti-
trust suits.

Visa Vice President Kelly Presta told Reuters in an interview, "It is
particularly odd that the plaintiffs are merchants, since the merchant
`discount rate', the fees paid by merchants for accepting Visa cards,
have always been lower than American Express."

He also said it was also "particularly telling that the government
never alleged any harm to merchants from Visa's bylaw or practices."


DQE INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of DQE, Inc. (NYSE:DQE) publicly traded
securities during the period between December 6, 2000 and April 30,
2001, inclusive.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, charges the Company and CEO David Marshall
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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 DQE securities.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, 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
DQE's operations, products, earnings and income were knowingly lacking
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 common stock dropped from $30.43 per share to
$23.75 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Expands Class Period in Texas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC has expanded the class period in
the securities class action against Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) to
encompass all purchasers of its common stock from October 19, 1998
through November 7, 2001, as a result of the Company's November 8,2001
announcement restating its financial performances from 1998 to 2001.

The firm, along with other law firms, previously filed a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Houston Division), charging the Company with federal securities
violations.

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 the Enron's common stock during the class period.

The prior complaints charged that during 2000 and 2001 the defendants
misrepresented and concealed material facts concerning the Company's
financial transactions with two partnerships established by the
Company's then Chief Financial Officer, which resulted in substantial
losses and a reduction in shareholders' equity of over $1 billion.

On November 8, 2001, prior to the markets opening, Enron announced it
was restating its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, and
the first two quarters of 2001 to correct for errors which had inflated
net income by hundreds of millions of dollars in those years.

The Company also revealed that audit reports for those years should not
be relied upon. Upon these disclosures, Company stock dropped to $8.41
per share on November 8, 2001, down from a class period high of $90.

For more information, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Mary Ann Fink by
Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC
20005 by Phone: 888/347-4600 or 202/408-4600 or by E-mail:
afriedman@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.cmht.com


ENRON CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Expands Class Period in Texas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP expanded the class period in the
securities suit filed on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corp. (NYSE:ENE)
common stock to January 18, 1999 and November 8, 2001, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Texarkana Division, charges the Company and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws.

On November 8, 2001, Enron announced that it would restate its 1997,
1998, 1999, 2000 and 1st and 2nd quarter 2001 results because of
various income statement and balance sheet adjustments.

These adjustments were required as the result of its determination that
three unconsolidated entities should have been consolidated in the
financial statements pursuant to generally accepted accounting
principles which caused the Company's 1997 through 2nd Quarter 2001
income and assets to be materially overstated.

Throughout 1999 and 2000, the price of Enron's common stock
substantially increased - rising from $32.50 per share on January 18,
1999 to $83.125 per share on December 29, 2000.

The complaint alleges that a substantial basis for this huge gain was
the Company's allegedly false and misleading reports of ever increasing
revenues and profits.

The effect of the restatement was dramatic. Rather than earning $698
million and $1.01 per share in 1998, the Company's restated earnings
fell to $585 million and $0.86 per share.

Net income was lowered $186 million in 1999 with EPS dropped from $1.10
to $0.79. Net income was lowered $132 million in 2000 and EPS
correspondingly fell from $1.12 to $0.97.

The restatement increased its debt by $561 million in 1998, $685
million in 1999 and $629 million in 2000. Shareholder's equity was
reduced by $448 million for 1998, $834 million for 1999, $1.16 billion
for 2000, $1.226 billion for first quarter 2001 and $929 million for
second quarter 2001.

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

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Schoengold Sporn Commences Derivative Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold and Sporn PC initiated a shareholder derivative class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) against the Company's Board
of Directors and its outside auditors by an institutional investor.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Board of Directors, certain
corporate officers and Enron's purportedly independent outside auditor,
Arthur Andersen LLP, engaged in a plan and scheme to artificially
inflate its balance sheet and profit-and-loss statement for at least
two years.

Defendants did so by keeping certain financial transactions off their
balance sheet by using partnerships run by officers of the Company in
extreme conflicts of interest. The goal of the participants in this
fraud was to obtain the highest credit rating possible.

This enabled Enron to finance its program of product and geographic
expansion at the lowest interest rates possible, while also gaining the
best possible negotiating positions with creditors and trading partners
in its core business.

Unfortunately for current Company shareholders, the defendants' plan
will now cost the Company its very independence, with its rival Dynegy,
Inc. acquiring it at a bargain-basement price.

Defendants' plan has and will continue to cost Enron untold millions of
dollars as the result of the loss of millions in market capitalization,
securities class action litigation engendered by the Company's drop in
stock price, and an on-going SEC investigation.

The claims asserted arise under:

     (1) Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,

     (2) common law breach of fiduciary duty,

     (3) breach of contract,

     (4) waste of corporate resources,

     (5) negligence and

     (6) contribution and indemnification.

The complaint also alleges that certain top Enron officers sold roughly
$73 million worth of stock at artificially inflated prices.

For further information, contact Ashley Kim by Mail: 19 Fulton Street,
Suite 406 New York, New York 10038 by Phone: (212) 964-0046 or (866)
348-7700 (toll-free) by Fax: (212) 267-8137 or by E-mail:
Shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Mark McNair Alleges Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair commenced a securities class action
lawsuit against GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (NASDAQ:GENI), on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the stock between December 21, 1999 and
September 25, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the Company, Adnan Khashoggi, former CEO
Ramy El-Batrawi and others of engaging in an elaborate two-year scheme
to manipulate the market in the company's stock and jack up its share
price, reaping millions of dollars in illegal gains.

The scheme began in December 1999 when Khashoggi and El-Batrawi made a
secret stock payment worth $3 million to financial commentator Courtney
Smith to tout the company's stock.

Smith recommended the stock at least 18 times during appearances on
CNBC, CNN, Bloomberg Television and other media outlets.

By the time of Smith's last appearance in March 2001, the stock had
jumped from less than $1.50 per share in December 1999 to highs of
between $14 and $28 per share.

For more information, contact Mark McNair by Mail: 1101 30th Street
N.W. Suite 500, Washington, D.C, 20007 by Phone: (877) 511-4717 or
(202) 872-4717 by E-mail: mcnair@justice4investors.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.justice4investors.com.


INTEL CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Intel
Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) between July 19, 2000 and September 29, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, charges the Company with violations of federal
securities laws.

Specifically, the suit alleges that as a result of the Intel's
extraordinarily bullish statements and assurances during the class
period about the strong demand for its products, improved manufacturing
processes and efficiencies, and the successful development and
introduction of its newest chips, Company stock rose above $75. These
positive statements were false.

On September 29, 2000, Intel admitted it was canceling its Timna chip
(due to technical development problems and a lack of market demand).

The Company also told customers it was delaying shipment of its Pentium
IV and Itanium chips due to design and development problems. This
revelation caused its stock price to drop.

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


INTEL CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) publicly
traded securities during the period between July 19, 2000 and September
29, 2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that as a result of the Company's extraordinarily
bullish statements and assurances during July, 2000-August 2000, on
August 28, 2000, Company stock hit its all-time high of $75-13/16.

However, positive statements about the following were false:

     (1) the strong demand for Intel's products;

     (2) Intel's improved manufacturing processes and efficiencies;

     (3) the successful development and introduction of its Pentium II
         microprocessor;

     (4) the successful development of the Pentium IV, Itanium and
         Timna chips; and

     (5) the outlook for Intel's 3rd Quarter 2000 results, issued from
         July 18-19, 2000 through the Intel Developer Forum,

On September 29, 2000, Intel admitted it was canceling its Timna chip
(due to technical development problems and a lack of market demand) and
told customers it was delaying shipment of its Pentium IV and Itanium
chips due to design and development problems.

The Company's stock dropped, falling to as low as $35-3/8. Thus, in
just over five weeks, its stock dropped from its all-time high of $75-
13/16 on August 28, 2000, to its lowest price in years, $35-3/8, a
market cap loss of $271 billion, wiping out 50% of Intel's stock value.

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


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Lead Plaintiff Deadline In CA Suit Set For Nov. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman and Coates LLP has announced that the deadline for
purchasers of Loudcloud, Inc. (Nasdaq:LDCL) common stock issued
pursuant to the March 8, 2001 Prospectus to move for lead plaintiff in
a securities fraud class action recently brought against the Company is
set on November 30,2001.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

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

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

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

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

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

As the truth about Loudcloud and its operations reached the market, the
price of shares fell to less than $2.00 per share.

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


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

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

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and misleading
statements concerning NextCard's operations and prospects for 2000 and
2001.

In fact defendants knew the Company's reserves were materially under-
funded and that as a result, its 2000 and 2001 projections and/or
results were false.

During the class period, taking advantage of the inflation in NextCard
stock, company insiders sold almost $9 million worth of their own stock
at artificially inflated prices of as much as $10.89 per share.

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

     (1) due to the deteriorating quality of the Company portfolio, the
         Company would need to dramatically increase its reserves for
         loan losses in fiscal 2000 and first three quarters 2001 and a
         s result its reported value of its loans for fiscal 2000 and
         the first two quarters 2001 was overstated;

     (2) the Company had improperly recorded "credit losses" as "fraud
         losses" and as a result the Company's "securitization
         activities" during the Class Period did not qualify for "low
         level recourse treatment."  Defendants knew that as a result,
         such would dramatically increase the Company bank division's
         risk weighted assets, and would decrease the Company's "risk
         based capital ratio" below federal banking guidelines -
         rendering the Company "significantly under capitalized";

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

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

These disclosures shocked the market, causing NextCard stock to decline
to $0.84 per share, before closing at $0.87 per share on October 31,
2001, on volume of more than 43 million shares.

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


OMNISKY CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc Henzel commenced a securities class action on
behalf all persons who acquired OmniSky Corporation (NASDAQ: OMNY)
securities between September 25, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (1) Patrick S. McVeigh,

     (2) Lawrence S. Winkler,

     (3) Michael J. Malesardi,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (5) Chase Securities, Inc.,

     (6) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation and

     (7) Salomon Smith Barney, 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 OmniSky's initial public
offering of 9.1 million shares of common stock at $12.00 per share that
was completed on or about September 25, 2000.

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 Underwriter Defendants and certain
         of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would
         allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for
         the customers' agreement to purchase 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


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: 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 ON Semiconductor Corporation
(formerly known as SCG Holding Corporation) (NASDAQ: ONNN) between
April 27, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated,

     (2) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (5) Steve Hanson,

     (6) Dario Sacomani and

     (7) Curtis J. Crawford.

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

In April 2000, ON Semi commenced an initial public offering of
30,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $16
per share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC, that was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which 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 they agreed to allocate shares to those customers in
         the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional 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


ONI SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of ONI Systems Corp. (NASDAQ:
ONIS) between May 31, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (4) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (5) Hugh C. Martin and

     (6) Chris A. Davis

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 May 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $25.00
per share.

In connection therewith, ONI 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 they agreed to allocate shares to those customers in
         the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For more information, contact 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


PALM INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Palm Inc. (NASDAQ: PALM)
between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, 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 March 2000, Palm commenced an initial public offering of 23,000,000
of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $38.00 per
share.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Marc 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


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Mark McNair Sues For Fed'l Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair commenced a securities class action
against Providian Financial Corporation (NYSE: PVN) on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the stock between June 6, 2001 and October
18, 2001.

The complaint against the Company alleges that it failed to inform
investors that it had changed from a policy and practice of immediately
writing-off receivables upon receipt of electronic notification that
customers had filed for bankruptcy to a policy and practice of
accumulating or "batching" bankruptcy notifications and then writing
off those receivables once per month.

As a result of this change in policy in late June, Providian deferred
recognition of some $30 million in charge-offs from the second to the
third quarter of 2001.

When Providian announced on October 18, 2001 that its financial results
were far lower than what the defendants had previously led investors to
believe, the price of Company stock dropped more than 90% below the
class period high of $59.80.

For further inquiries, contact Mark McNair by Mail: 1101 30th Street
N.W. Suite 500, Washington, D.C, 20007 by Phone: (877) 511-4717 or
(202) 872-4717 by E-mail: mcnair@justice4investors.com or visit the
firm's website www.justice4investors.com


RADIO UNICA: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP commenced a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Radio
Unica Communications Corp. (NASDAQ:UNCA) between October 19, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

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

In October 1999, Radio Unica commenced an initial public offering of
6.84 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16
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:

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

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

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


SANDSTAR FAMILY: Sued After Inmate Telemarketer Contacts Customer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SandStar Family Entertainment faces a class action filed by the mother
of a 14-year-old after she received a letter from an inmate who got her
address from another inmate working as telemarketer for the Company.

The inmate allegedly got the girl's name, birth date, physical
description and address and gave the information to a fellow inmate,
who contacted the girl.

The girl's mother, April Jordan, said Sandstar violated her family's
privacy.  She also said, according to an Associated Press Report, that
while the letter didn't contain anything sexual, it bothered her that
the author was a convicted felon.

In an interview with the Associated Press, she says "When you know
there are adult men, with not the best intentions, with information
about your daughter, and you don't know who they are ... it's like
being on guard 24-7."

The suit was filed in Dallas federal court and seeks class action
certification, claiming the inmates contacted potentially thousands of
families.

Jordan's attorney, Jim Harrington said Sandstar violated the law by
collecting consumers' personal information without revealing that it
would be provided to felons.

The Utah Department of Corrections discontinued all inmate
telemarketing last year.

Corrections department spokesman Jack Ford said the inmate has
apologized for the mailing, saying he believed the girl was a woman
over 21.

According to an AP report, officials from SandStar, which sells Sesame
Street videos and family-oriented films, did not return telephone calls
Wednesday.


SHOPKO STORES: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. WI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of ShopKo Stores, Inc. (NYSE:SKO) common stock
during the period between March 9, 2000 and November 9, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning
its business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued statements
concerning the integration of Pamida Holding Corporation, Shopko's
financial results and prospects.

The complaint further alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other
things, that the Company was experiencing significant shipping and
inventory control problems at Pamida's distribution centers.

On November 9, 2000, Shopko issued a press release announcing its
earnings for the third quarter of 2000 reporting a loss of ($0.23) per
share - far below the $0.02 to $0.07 per share previously represented
by the Company.

The Company also revealed that it was experiencing problems at Pamida's
distribution centers and that those problems accounted for its reduced
earnings.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


STATE FARM: Agrees To $45M Arizona Insurance Claims Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Insurance Companies agreed to settle for $45 million a class
action suit pending in the Arizona Superior Court, ending a 6-year-old
dispute with customers to whom the Company refused "stack benefits."

The suit was commenced in 1995, after the Company refused to pay
benefits to customers submitting claims for multiple State Farm
policies.

State Farm had a standard between 1988 and 1995, under which customers
with multiple policies could receive payments from only one policy when
they filed claims even though they were covered under several policies.

After the suit was filed, the Company voluntarily reopened claims and
paid more than $30 million in additional benefits and interest to
policyholders like Hail.

The settlement, approved by Judge Kenneth Lee Tuesday, could affect 600
policyholders in Arizona and hundreds more in the future.

Under the agreement, damages totaling $33 million will be available to
claimants, who will be eligible to get at least $50,000, and may
receive more if other claimants fail to respond to a settlement notice.

The $45 million settlement also includes more than $11 million that
will be used to pay attorney costs.

A meeting with attorneys for both parties is scheduled today for an $11
million agreement to settle claims on behalf of policyholders affected
by similar policies before 1988.

Attorney John Gabroy said State Farm decided to settle the case for
several reasons, including the Company's concern that the case could
drag on for years and a jury award could be reversed by the Arizona
Court of Appeals, as has happened in other class-action lawsuits.

A jury trial had been scheduled in the Arizona Superior Court next
June, but the Companies' attorneys said that their materials, including
more than 600,000 documents, would have taken up half of the courtroom.

State Farm spokesman Mark Brandt said the company agreed to settle the
lawsuit to avoid litigation costs and to avoid an "adverse relationship
with our customers."


TERADYNE INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Massachusetts Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP filed a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Teradyne, Inc. (NYSE:TER) common stock during
the period between July 14, 2000 and October 17, 2000, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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


TIDEL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. TX Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Tidel Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATMS)
common stock from April 6, 2000 through February 8, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and names as defendants, the Company and:

     (1) James T. Rash, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
         Officer and Chairman of Board of Directors;

     (2) Mark K. Levenick, Chief Operating Officer and Director;

     (3) James L. Britton III, Director; and

     (4) Jerrell G. Clay, Director

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, charges the defendants with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition.

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

These materially false and misleading statements allowed the Company 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 Tidel finally disclosed that its largest customer's orders would
be at "substantially reduced levels for the quarter ending March 31,
200l," Company stock price declined precipitously.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company 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 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


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Jury Rules In Favor Of Tobacco Companies in WV Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Big tobacco" prevailed in the West Virginia smokers class action as an
Ohio County jury ruled that cigarette makers are not obligated to pay
for a medical monitoring program for healthy smokers.

It was a huge blow to 250,000 smokers who filed the suit in the hopes
of getting the Companies to pay for tests that could earlier detect
serious smoking-related diseases like lung cancer and emphysema.

The suit named as defendants four major tobacco companies:

     (1) RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc.,

     (2) Philip Morris Companies, Inc.,

     (3) Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and

     (4) Lorillard Tobacco Company

The suit was filed on behalf of people who had smoked the equivalent of
a pack of cigarettes a day for five years but had no symptoms of
tobacco-related diseases.

The suit alleged that the Companies had created a "defective product"
and had wantonly and willfully ignored rising evidence that smoking
causes diseases.

The defendants countered that they exerted much effort and research to
find a safer product, and that the best way to avoid disease was to
simply quit smoking.

After two days of deliberations in a trial that began on September 10,
the jury of three men and three women denied the plaintiff's claim that
cigarettes should be viewed as defective products and found that
tobacco firms were not obliged to pay for medical monitoring.

Spokespersons for the four tobacco companies hailed the decision,
saying it was an important victory for the tobacco industry.

John Finley, attorney for Brown and Williamson, said in a press
statement "During the trial, we presented evidence that the medical
monitoring procedures requested by the plaintiffs are not reasonably
and medically necessary."

He added that they were gratified by the jury's verdict, saying ".the
overwhelming weight of case law shows that this case should have been
rejected as a class action from the outset. The case never should have
been tried."

Lorillard Vice President, Ronald S. Milstein said he was "very pleased
with the jury's verdict.After hearing all of the evidence, the jury
concluded that there was no basis for imposing legal liability on the
tobacco industry."

He said, in a press statement, that he "was especially pleased that
after hearing the plaintiffs' accusations that the industry had engaged
in willful and wanton misconduct, the jury found that these charges
were baseless."

Jeff Furr, attorney for RJ Reynolds also said in a statement, "After
two months of hearing all the facts and seeing all the evidence in this
case, the jurors used their common sense and rejected the notion that
tobacco manufacturers are responsible for the inherent risks of
smoking."

Furr added: "This jury properly recognized that the medical monitoring
program that was designed by the plaintiffs' lawyers has not been shown
to be safe, accurate and effective - and has not been adopted or
recommended by any public health group."

He opined that the jurors sent a clear message "Tobacco companies are
not liable for the inherent risks associated with smoking, and if
smokers are concerned about those risks, they should quit - not sue and
continue to smoke."


XCARE.NET: 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 XCare.net, Inc. (NASDAQ:XCAR) between
February 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges 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 February 2000, XCare.net commenced an initial public offering of 5
million of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $18 per
share.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact 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

                              *********


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  * * *