CAR_Public/011119.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 19, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 226

                           Headlines


ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
CARGILL INC.: Sued By African-Americans Employees For Discrimination
COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
DATA RETURN: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York

ENRON CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
ENSCO INTERNATIONAL: Reaches $625,000 Wages Antitrust Suit Settlement
FOCAL COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in NY
HILTON HOTELS: DE Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Shareholder Suit
HOOVER'S INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

INTEGRATED TELECOM: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ISCOR LIMITED: South African Residents Sue Due To Polluted Groundwater
KAISER-FRANCIS OIL: Texas Jury Awards $73 Million To OK Mineral Owners
LASCO BATHWARE: Federal Court Certifies Texas Bathtub Consumer Suit
LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit

OPTIO SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
PHARMACIA CORPORATION: Labels NY Arthritis Drug Suit "Without Merit"
SPACELABS MEDICAL: WA Racial Discrimination Suit Remains Uncertified
STORAGENETWORKS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits Over IPO In S.D. NY
TIRE RECALL: Uninjured Customers File Consumer Suit Vs Firestone,Ford

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyer Says WV Verdict Won't Stop Similar Suits
TRITON NETWORK: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
OKLAHOMA STATE: Sued By Faculty Members Over Retirement Benefits Cut
UNILAB CORPORATION: Sued By Shareholders Over 1999 Recapitalization
VITRIA TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY

WIRELESS FACILITIES: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
XEROX CORPORATION: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
XOMA LTD.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. California



                             *********


ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of ACLARA BioSciences, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ACLA) between March 20, 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 March 2000, ACLARA commenced an initial public offering of 9,000,000
of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $21 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 Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail; Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC commenced a securities class action against
Apropos Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:APRS) and its principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased Company stock
in or traceable to the Company's February 17, 2000 initial public
offering or in the open market during the Class Period from February
17, 2000 through April 10, 2001.

This is the only action filed on behalf of purchasers of Apropos common
stock during the period February 17, 2000 through April 10, 2001. The
class period in previously filed actions ends on May 15, 2000.

The complaint alleges that pursuant to the Registration Statement on or
about February 17, 2000, the Company commenced an initial public
offering of 3.7 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $22 per share.

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of l933 by making material misrepresentations in the
prospectus and registration statement.

Apropos allegedly misrepresented the uses to which it would put the
money raised in the IPO. Specifically, the prospectus claimed that to
achieve its strategic goals the money would be used for research and
development to enhance the Company's products and for marketing and
sales.

In fact, a large part of the money raised was simply held as cash or
short-term investments. Accordingly, the Company's statements about its
goals and the uses for the proceeds of the IPO are false and
misleading.

The complaint also alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus for the IPO contained material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the role that defendants, Brady and Bach, played in
Apropos at the time of the IPO.

Specifically, the prospectus misrepresented that the two were both
active members of the executive management team and the Company's most
senior technology officers.

In July 1999, Brady failed in an effort to have the Company's Board of
Directors oust defendant Kerns from the company. As a result, Brady
packed up his office and stopped reporting for work, effectively ending
his tenure as Chief Technology Officer. He had no involvement in the
day-to-day affairs of the Company, nor was he involved in the
development of its business and technology.

At about the same time, Bach also fell out of favor with Kerns. Kerns
limited Bach's role in the Company to being in charge of two employees
responsible for designing and implementing customer interfaces.

At the time of the IPO, Apropos' technology and development departments
were in disarray. None of these material facts were disclosed to the
investing public in the IPO documents.

As a result of the misrepresentations, the investing public was misled.
On April 10, 2001 the Company's share price declined to $2.98 from a
class period high of $70 near the beginning of the class period.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick,
Elizabeth Fox, Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax:
215-875-5715 by E-mail. InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's
Website: www.bergermontague.com


CARGILL INC.: Sued By African-Americans Employees For Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Food distribution giant Cargill Inc. faces a class action filed by its
current and former African-American employees, claiming the Company
pays black employees less than their white peers.

Sprenger and Lang commenced the suit in the US District Court in
Minneapolis on behalf of 25 current and former Cargill employees,

According to an Associated Press report, Attorney Lawrence Schaefer
said the discrimination was "company-wide" and that the Company has
only one black among its top 150 executives and low percentages of
blacks at all management levels.

The suit seek class action status that could extend the case to more
than 1,000 black employees who have worked at the Company during the
past six years.

Nancy Siska, Cargill's Vice President for Human Resources denied the
allegations. "That is not true. I would not work here if that were
true. It's wrong and it is not good for business."

She also told AP "We think of our senior management team as our top 25
corporate center employees. In that group, we have one African-
American. He has headed our grain division, which is one of our
largest. He's currently the Corporate Vice President for
transportation."

Cargill is a marketer, processor and distributor of agricultural, food,
financial and industrial products worldwide and services with 90,000
employees in 57 countries.


COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of CoSine Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:COSN) common stock
between September 26, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges 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 September 2000, Cosine commenced an initial public offering of 10
million 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 Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY 10017 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


DATA RETURN: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Data Return Corp.
(Nasdaq:DRTN) between October 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Sunny C. Vanderbeck, CEO and Chairman,

     (2) Michelle R. Chambers, President, COO and director,

     (3) Jason A. Lockhead, Vice President of Research and Product
         Development and director,

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.,

     (5) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (6) Lehman Brothers Inc. and

     (7) 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.

In October 1999, Data Return commenced an initial public offering of
6,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $13 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 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 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


ENRON CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP filed a securities class action against
Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) and certain of the Company's officers and
directors in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
securities of Enron Corporation between January 20, 1998 and November
8, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the defendants
engaged in asset and securities sales to closely related affiliates and
interested parties, which disguised the Company's true financial
position. Many of the details of these transactions were hidden from
the public.

Defendants used these asset sales to falsely improve Enron's balance
sheet, thereby maintaining shares at an artificially inflated price.

Certain Company executives, who held positions in the affiliates that
presented clear conflicts of interest, reaped millions of dollars in
personal gains from these transactions.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period, defendants
made misleading statements regarding the potential value of the
Company's Broadband business, in order to artificially boost its share
price.

With knowledge that the Broadband business would never post a profit
and was seriously overvalued, the defendants continued to make
misleading statements about the business in order to maintain the share
price at its artificially inflated levels.

Defendants used the artificially inflated value of Enron's Broadband
business in order to gain millions of dollars in financing.

Defendants failed to disclose the risk of these financing arrangements
and hid the true nature of the Company's earnings, its hedging, its
businesses, and the correct state of its finances from its investors
and the market.

While the stock was artificially inflated for the above reasons, Enron
executives allegedly engaged in extensive insider trading, gaining
personal proceeds of more than $482 million during the class period,
before the public became aware of the above practices.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox by Mail: 805 Third
Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212)
687-1980 by Fax: (212) 687-7714 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or
Laurence D. King by Mail: 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA
94111 by Phone: (415) 336-1238 by Fax: (415) 677-1233 or by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com


ENSCO INTERNATIONAL: Reaches $625,000 Wages Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco International Inc. has agreed to pay $625,000 to settle an
antitrust class action involving more than 15 American offshore
drilling companies.

The suit was commenced in September 2000, alleging that the Company and
more than 15 other companies violated provisions of the Sherman and
Clayton Antitrust Acts.

The Companies, whose collective operations represent a majority of the
U.S. offshore contract drilling industry, allegedly conspired to avoid
competition for drilling labor by illegally fixing or suppressing the
wages and benefits paid their drilling employees.

The Company maintains that it has not committed any wrongdoing but,
according to a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
agreed to settle the case in order to avoid costly and time-consuming
litigation.

The settlement awaits:

     (1) the expiration of an applicable period of time during which
         parties affected by the settlement can file objections, and

     (2) final court approval.


FOCAL COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Focal
Communications (NASDAQ:FCOM) between July 28, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

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

Last July 28, 1999, Focal commenced an initial public offering of 9.95
million of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $13 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 on the offering had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
         in exchange for which those underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the restricted number of 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 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 FOCAL.


HILTON HOTELS: DE Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme Court upheld a lower court's dismissal of a class
action filed against Hilton Hotels Corporation challenging an agreement
between the Company and ChaseMellon Shareholder Services LLC.

The suit was commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery in February
2000, under the caption Leonard Loventhal Account v. Hilton Hotels
Corporation.

The suit alleged that the November 29,1999 preferred share rights
purchase agreement between Hilton and ChaseMellon relating to preferred
share purchase rights was invalid.

The suit further alleged that the agreement was unenforceable and
violated provisions of:

     (1) Delaware General Corporation Law,

     (2) the Uniform Commercial Code and

     (3) Hilton's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws.

The Court dismissed the motion in its entirety last October 2000, a
decision which the plaintiffs promptly appealed to the Delaware Supreme
Court.


HOOVER'S INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Hoover's Inc.
(NASDAQ: HOOV) between July 20, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Patrick J. Spain, CEO, President and Chairman,

     (2) Lynn Atchison, CFO and

     (3) Lehman Brothers 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.

In July 1999, Hoover's commenced an initial public offering of
3,250,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $14
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 Company had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which 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 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


INTEGRATED TELECOM: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Integrated Telecom Express, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ITXI) securities between August 18, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

     (1) Daniel Chen, Chairman,

     (2) Richard H. Forte, CEO, President and director,

     (3) Timothy A. Rogers, Chief Financial and Administrative
         Officer,

     (4) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (5) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and

     (6) 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.

In August 2000, ITE commenced an initial public offering of 5,600,000
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:

     (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 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


ISCOR LIMITED: South African Residents Sue Due To Polluted Groundwater
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron and steel giant, Iscor Limited, will face an environmental class
action to be filed by residents of Vanderbiljpark, South Africa in
Johannesburg High Court early next week.

Residents of Steel Valley and Linkholm Agricultural Holdings assert
that the Company's flagship plant adjacent to their residential
properties has caused them financial and physical ruin.

The suit will allege that their water has been polluted by the plant's
industrial effluent, which is pumped from boreholes.  Most of the
residents are subsistence or small-scale farmers and use the
groundwater for homes, livestock, agriculture and leisure.

The suit will also mention other adverse effects caused by the plant's
operations:

     (1) excessive noise from the pumping station,

     (2) bad smells and dust gathering in homes from nearby slag heaps,

     (3) windblown dust containing noxious substances,

     (4) devaluation of property

Lawyers for the residents will show a battery of medical tests
allegedly proving the contamination from seepage pits, maturation dams
and slag heaps at the Iscor plant.

They hope to introduce as evidence the medical report of a practitioner
who has conducted blood and urine tests on the applicants that "portray
a very alarming profile of their health." This will be bolstered by the
report of a chemical engineer on the actual extent of the alleged
pollution.

The plaintiffs will assert that Iscor has been buying properties of
residents in the area for an amount "in excess of R75 million, thus
pointing that the Company acknowledged its responsibility in polluting
the area.

In addition, the Company has, for several years, contracted Rand Water
to supply drinking water to certain plot holders as a substitute for
polluted water in their boreholes. This, residents say, is an
indication that Iscor knows it is polluting the water.

Instead of asking for money damages, however, the plaintiffs are going
to demand that the Company's operations be stopped through an interdict
halting effluent discharge that reaches residential boreholes via
groundwater seepage.

Iscor has denied the allegations in court papers, by employing a highly
technical legal argument saying that some of the affidavits were
illegible, and that the evidence annexed to the affidavits by the
chemical engineer and practitioner are unsigned and thus inadmissible
in court.


In a Mail and Guardian Report, the Company slammed the allegations,
saying "The facts they (the applicants) rely on relate to a possible
past invasion of rights and not to the present-day situation."

Iscor also called the relief that will be sought "untenable" and
"highly detrimental."


KAISER-FRANCIS OIL: Texas Jury Awards $73 Million To OK Mineral Owners
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas County jury ordered Kaiser-Francis Oil Company to pay more than
$73 million in damages to 2,200 Oklahoma Panhandle mineral owners in
what could possibly be a landmark decision about royalties in oil and
gas operations.

The class action was originally filed against the Company and three
other defendants:

     (1) Union Pacific Oil and Gas Company of Dallas,

     (2) Questar Resources of Salt Lake City, and

     (3) Chase Manhattan Bank in New York City

Only Kaiser-Francis proceeded to trial, with the other firms settling
with the plaintiffs for $26 million last year.

The jury awarded $54.9 million in actual damages and $18.8 million in
punitive damages to the plaintiffs, according to the Amarillo Globe-
Times.

Michael Barnes, lead attorney for the plaintiffs told the Amarillo
Globe-Times that the civil trial lasted four weeks, with more than a
million documents introduced into evidence.

The jurors found that Kaiser-Francis:

     (i) failed to pay or report for volumes of gas that were reflected
         as gas overages or system overages;

    (ii) skimmed revenues associated with the Beaver Pipeline; and

   (iii) failed to report or pay for the increased value of the gas
         taken from points on the Beaver Gathering System

Barnes further said "this is the first time a jury has found oil
companies engaged in concerted action.It is a very important case to
royalty owners because the case revolved around inaccurate information
of check stubs. It's a common practice and will probably change the way
oil companies do business."

Barnes said several similar suits in the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles
are pending and that he expected the Company to appeal.

Amarillo oilman Tom Cambridge said that, while the case might not be a
landmark class action, it did serve a lesson for oil companies.

Cambridge told the Globe-Times that "I think the bigger implications
would be the pipelines need to be more forthright in their
information."

He added "It's certainly something that should bring anybody
transporting gas to realize the need to be accurate in their
bookkeeping and forthright in the way they do business."


LASCO BATHWARE: Federal Court Certifies Texas Bathtub Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Malesovas & Martin, LLP confirmed that the suit against Lasco Bathware,
Inc., a subsidiary of Tomkins PLC (NYSE:TKS) was certified by Judge
Tommy Wallace in Canton, Texas, as a class action.

Wallace allowed the plaintiffs' claims that the Company's whirlpool
bathtubs retain dirty bath water and propagate bacterial colonies in
their piping systems to proceed as a class action for the benefit of
thousands of other Lasco whirlpool bathtub owners in Texas.

The suit was commenced in October 1999 and alleges that Lasco's
whirlpool bathtubs retain dirty bath water in the whirlpool piping
system between baths.

This dirty bath water is alleged to contain unsanitary and unsafe
levels of organic matter, body fluids and bacteria.

The bath residue remains in the piping system and adheres to the pipe
walls and other system components, growing a microbial forest of
potentially harmful bacteria according to the lawsuit.

When subsequent bathers activate the whirlpool, the lawsuit alleges
that this accumulated biofilm is injected into the bather's water and
ejected from bursting bubbles into the bather's air volume.

The suit also claims that the cleaning instructions provided for the
tubs are ineffective to remove this accumulation of biofilm  which
results from the retention of dirty bath water.

The Centers for Disease Control, as well as several respected medical
researchers, have confirmed a number of deaths and outbreaks of disease
from hot tubs. The lawsuit claims that the same potential for disease
transmission and illness as confirmed in hot tubs exists in jetted
whirlpool bathtubs and that the manufacturers have attempted to cover
up this problem from the consuming public.

For more information, contact Malesovas and Martin LLP by Mail: 425
Austin Ave, 10th Floor Waco, Texas 76701 by Phone: (254) 753-1777 by
Fax: (254) 755-6400 or visit the firm's Website: www.malesovas.com


LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Latitude
Communications Inc. (NASDAQ:LATD) between May 6, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Emil C.W. Wang, CEO, President and Director,

     (2) Rick M. McConnell, CFO,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, and

     (4) 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.

In May 1999, Latitude commenced an initial public offering of 3,000,000
of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $12 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 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


OPTIO SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Optio Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ:OPTO) between December 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

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

In December 1999, Optio commenced an initial public offering of
5,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $10
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 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


PHARMACIA CORPORATION: Labels NY Arthritis Drug Suit "Without Merit"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmacia Corporation faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court in Brooklyn, New York alleging cardiovascular safety
issues associated with two arthritis pain relief medications.

The suit, which also names pharmaceutical giants Pfizer Inc. and Merck
and Company, Inc., alleges that the plaintiffs suffered cardiac illness
after taking Vioxx and Celebrex.

The suit claims that the millions of patients in the U.S. who took
Vioxx and Celebrex are entitled to a refund for all amounts paid
for the purchase of these drugs, their medical expenses and
attorneys' fees.

The complaint also makes numerous claims for injunctive and equitable
relief, including emergency notice to class members, revised labeling
and a court-ordered and supervised medical monitoring program funded by
defendants.

Pharmacia believes the suit is without merit and last September 21,
2001, asked the court to dismiss the suit on a number of grounds.



SPACELABS MEDICAL: WA Racial Discrimination Suit Remains Uncertified
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Spacelabs Medical, Inc. faces a class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, accusing the Company of
discriminating against Hispanic employees.

The suit was filed by twenty-nine named plaintiffs, alleging national
origin discrimination and other claims arising out of certain alleged
terms and conditions of employment and termination of certain Hispanic
employees at the Company.

To date the class has not been certified and Spacelaba has obtained
dismissal of some or all of the claims of three of the named
plaintiffs.

The complaint seeks class certification, judgment of no less than
$10,000,000, incidental and consequential damages, interest, and costs.

While the outcome of these proceedings cannot be predicted with
certainty, Spacelab management does not believe the complaint is
meritorious.


STORAGENETWORKS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits Over IPO In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Storagenetworks, Inc. will vigorously oppose several securities class
actions commenced in August 2001 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between June 30, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The suits charge the Company, several of its officers or directors and
the underwriters of its initial public offering with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The defendants reportedly made material false and misleading statements
in the prospectus that was incorporated into the registration statement
on Form S-1 that was filed in connection with the Company's initial
public offering.

The suits allege that:

     (1) the underwriters received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions and engaged in prohibited aftermarket
         transactions;

     (2) the underwriters entered into agreements with their customers
         pursuant to which the customers, in return for being allocated
         shares in the initial public offering, agreed to purchase
         additional shares on the open market at specified increased
         prices.

Although the Company believes that these claims are without merit, it
is not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any,
related to this matter.


TIRE RECALL: Uninjured Customers File Consumer Suit Vs Firestone,Ford
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. and Ford Motor Company face another class
action related to Bridgestone's recall of more than 6 million tires
last year.

The recall commenced after the tires, used in the Ford Explorer, were
linked to more than 250 deaths and hundreds of injuries in rollovers
involving the popular SUV in which the tread separated from the tire.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Indianapolis under
Judge Sarah Evans Barker, who is set to hear arguments today.

The suit is unique from other suits because it won't involve cases
where people were injured or killed because of tire blowouts or vehicle
rollovers, which have been by far the most publicized elements of the
case.

Instead, it consolidates claims from millions of people across the
country for a variety of reasons, including loss of value and
violations of consumer protection laws and the federal warranty act.

Attorney Irwin Levin, the plaintiffs' liaison, said that giving this
case class action status was the only realistic way to handle the sheer
volume of non-injury suits.

Levin told Associated Press, "Judge Barker is going to see very clearly
that if we're going to provide compensation for the people who bought
these tires and were not injured, we're going to have to do it through
the class certification process."

He asserts "We have a common defect in all the tires that they
manufacture that went on the Ford Explorer, as well as other tires."

Bridgestone spokeswoman Jill Bratina said the Company will oppose class
action certification because the non-injury cases are too different to
treat as a whole, according to an Associated Press report.

She also said the proposed class would involve nearly 300 different
populations of tires, including different sizes and types, which would
present an unmanageable case for a jury to consider.

She added that Bridgestone is arguing against the very consideration of
many of these cases, as they involve people who were never hurt because
of a tire failure, a view shared by Ford.

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes also told Associated Press that "This
litigation is being brought by people who have not been hurt in any way
shape or form, they have not been in an accident, they have not
suffered a tread separation."

She asserts, "If the decision is based on fact, we expect that at some
point the court will put an end to this litigation."


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyer Says WV Verdict Won't Stop Similar Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
After "Big Tobacco" won the West Virginia smokers' class action, an
anti-tobacco lawyer believes the verdict will not stop smokers in other
states from filing similar legal actions.

Edward L. Sweda, senior attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability
Project at the Northeastern University Law School, told Associated
Press "I expect that lawyers who are seriously considering this are not
going to be deterred by one verdict in one location."

An Ohio County jury ruled for four national tobacco companies this
week, saying they were not obligated to pay for an unprecedented
medical monitoring program that the smokers allege could detect serious
diseases like lung cancer and emphysema earlier.

The suit, the first of its kind to be tried in the United States, was
filed against tobacco giants RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown and
Williamson and Lorillard.

Lawyers for 250,000 healthy West Virginia smokers argued that the
Companies created a "defective product" and had done nothing to create
a safer product.

The jury discounted this claim, saying that cigarettes were not
defective and the Companies were not negligent in designing, making or
selling cigarettes.

The jurors also agreed with the Companies' contention that instead of a
medical monitoring program, the best way to prevent smoking related
diseases was to simply quit.

Jury foreman Mark Burris told the Associated Press "It came down to,
`If you smoke, stop. If you don't smoke, don't start'."

RJ Reynolds attorney Jeff Furr hailed the verdict, saying this was a
case where the jury said `Enough is enough', saying "This industry has
been under assault for years. You can't just keep piling it on."

Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur Recht believes that many will examine
the case closely given that few states have recognized the legal
concept of medical monitoring.

He expects an appeal of the verdict and has gone to great lengths to
make sure that all objections were preserved in detail in the court
record.

Sweda said there was hope in the jury's findings, specifically those
that concluded that smokers do have a higher risk of disease, and that
the tests the smokers had proposed were capable of detecting disease
early.


TRITON NETWORK: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP filed a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Triton Network
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: TNSI) between July 12, 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) Taylor J. Crouch, CEO, President and director,

     (2) Richard P. Shea, CFO and Treasurer,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens 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.

In July 2000, Triton commenced an initial public offering of 5,500,000
of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $15 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 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 Triton shares to those
         customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices.

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


OKLAHOMA STATE: Sued By Faculty Members Over Retirement Benefits Cut
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma State University faculty members filed a class action in
Oklahoma County District Court yesterday against university officials
and the Oklahoma Teacher Retirement System.

The suit alleges their retirement benefits were cut and that the state
improperly imposed caps on salary levels used to determine retirement
benefits.

Charles Edgley, chairman of the OSU Faculty Council, said the
retirement benefits were lost during a restructuring in the mid-1990s.

He also said that if the dispute ends up being decided in court, the
resolution could cost OSU up to $44 million, an estimate of benefit
losses among faculty and staff and legal costs.


UNILAB CORPORATION: Sued By Shareholders Over 1999 Recapitalization
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unilab Corporation faces a purported class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to
its November 1999 recapitalization.

The suit, filed against the Company and its board of directors, alleges
that the proxy statement relating to the November 1999 recapitalization
contained material misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the
federal proxy rules.

The suit also alleges that approval of the terms of the merger of UC
Acquisition Sub, Inc., the acquisition vehicle established by Kelso,
Unilab's majority shareholder, into the Company amounted to a breach of
the fiduciary duties owed to stockholders by Unilab's directors.

The plaintiffs and defendants negotiated a settlement to dismiss the
action with prejudice, subject to:

     (1) completion of confirmatory discovery;

     (2) completion of definitive documentation relating to the
         settlement;

     (3) court approval.

However, the plaintiffs later announced they no longer agree to
consummate the settlement.

Unilab believes the suit is without merit, but because this matter is
in the early stages of litigation it is not possible to predict the
likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Vitria Technologies, Inc.,
(NASDAQ: VITR) between September 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

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

     (3) Bancboston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (4) Soundview Technology Group, Inc.,

     (5) JoMei Chang,

     (6) M. Dale Skeen,

     (7) Paul R. Auvil, III,

     (8) William H. Younger,

    (10) John L. Walecka,

    (11) Robert M. Halperin,

    (12) Jay W. Shiveley,

    (13) Alexander E. Osadzinski, and

    (14) Brentwood Venture Capital

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 September 1999, Vitria commenced an initial public offering of
3,000,000 of common stock, at an offering price of $16 per share and on
February 11, 2000, it also commenced a secondary public offering of
4,500,000 of common stock, at an offering price of $120 per share.

The Company filed registration statements with the SEC in connection
with the initial offering and the secondary offering, each of which
incorporated a prospectus.

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

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

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

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


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Facilities, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action,
originally filed in June and July 2001 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit arose from five complaints filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock at various times on or after November 4, 1999.

The complaints alleged that the registration statement and prospectus
dated November 4, 1999, issued in connection with the public offering
contained materially false statements and omissions.

The suits also uniformly alleged that the Company violated securities
laws because the registration statement and prospectus allegedly failed
to disclose that the offering's underwriters had:

     (1) solicited and received additional and excessive compensation
         and benefits from their customers beyond what was listed in
         the registration statement and prospectus; and

     (2) entered into tie-in or other arrangements with certain of
         their customers which were allegedly designed to maintain,
         distort and/or inflate the market price of the Company's
         common stock in the aftermarket.

The suits were consolidated for pretrial purpose in August 2001.  An
initial case management conference was held on September 7, 2001 for
the lawsuits, at which time the court ordered that the time for all
defendants to respond to any complaint be postponed until further
notice of the Court.

Wireless Facilities believes this lawsuit is without merit.


XEROX CORPORATION: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against Xerox Corporation.

The suit names the Company and defendants:

     (1) Barry Romeril,

     (2) Paul Allaire and

     (3) G. Richard Thoman, former Chief Executive Officer

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period between October 22, 1998 through October 7,
1999.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (34 Act), and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Each of the defendants allegedly participated in a a fraudulent scheme
and course of business that defrauded or deceived purchasers of the
Xerox's stock, disseminating materially false and misleading statements
and/or concealing material facts.

The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

     (i) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the
         intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;

    (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common
         stock of the Company while in possession of materially
         adverse, non-public information; and

   (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase Company stock at inflated
         prices.

The Company asked for the dismissal of the suit, but the court denied
their motion.

Xerox has answered the complaint, denying any wrongdoing.


XOMA LTD.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo LLP commenced a class
action suit against XOMA Ltd. (NASDAQ:XOMA) claiming that the company
misled investors about the development of a new psoriasis drug.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The suit was filed on behalf of all investors
who bought XOMA stock between May 24, 2001 and October 4, 2001,
including those persons who purchased shares in or traceable to the
Company's June 26 offering of 3 million shares.

The suit alleges that the Company issued false and misleading
statements about its plans to file a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
application for Xanelim, an experimental psoriasis drug it was co-
developing with Genentech Inc.

For investors in XOMA, successful development of Xanelim was pivotal.
In 20 years, the Company failed to turn a profit or bring a drug to
market.

Filing the application, known as a Biologics Licensing Application
(BLA), was an important step in gaining FDA approval for the drug. The
Company repeatedly said it planned to file the BLA with the agency by
the end of 2001 or the first quarter of 2002.

That timetable would have put XOMA and Genentech in a neck-and-neck
race with Biogen, Inc. to be the first manufacturer to market an
effective treatment for psoriasis.

The winner would gain a significant advantage in a lucrative market
that is expected to reach $2 billion by the year 2005.

In fact, the Company and Genetech were nearly a year behind Biogen. At
the time the Company told investors it planned to file its BLA by the
end of 2001, it knew but failed to disclose that a change in its
manufacturing process would necessarily delay filing until after that
date.

On October 4, 2001, XOMA admitted that it would not file the BLA until
the summer of 2002 at the earliest.

The next day the price of Company stock fell as low as $6.40 from a
closing price of $9.76 per share a day earlier.

For more information, contact Steven D. Morris,. Jennifer Abrams or
Michael G. Lange by Mail: 425 California Street, Suite 2025 One Liberty
Square San Francisco, CA 94104 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 (415) 433-3200
by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bermanesq.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  * * *