CAR_Public/011120.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 20, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 227

                              Headlines


AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Berger Montague Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit
AUTOBYTEL INC.: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. New York
BAAN COMPANY: Shareholders Sue For Securities Acts Violations in DC
CARGILL INC.: Black Employees Allege Racial Discrimination in MN Suits

CHEEKTOWAGA CENTRAL: Norfolk Southern Sues Over Property Assessments
ESC MEDICAL: Parties Drafting S.D. NY Securities Suit Settlement
FATBRAIN.COM: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Texas Court To Dismiss Pending Securities Suits
INAMED CORPORATION: CA Suits Relating To Breast Implants Dismissed

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: New Jersey Minority Employees Sue For Racial Bias
LIBERTY SATELLITE: Acquisition By Liberty Media Spurs Securities Suits
LIQUID AUDIO: Shareholders Sue For S.D. NY Securities Act Violations
LOS ANGELES: Police Union Charges LAPD Blacklists Officers
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Squitieri Fearon Files Securities Suit in N.D. NJ

NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Lionel Glancy Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
OKLAHOMA STATE: Suit Over Retirement Benefits Could Cost $44 Million
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Sued For Unfair Business Practices In San Francisco
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Refuses To Certify Discrimination Suit
NEXTCARD INC.: Kaplan Fox Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. California

PACIFICARE HEALTH: Court Dismisses Two Securities Suits In C.D. CA
PREDICTIVE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: Settles California Suits By Issuing 1.4M Shares
PSS WORLD: Flurry Of M.D. FL Securities Suits "Without Merit"
PURDUE PHARMA: Judge Refuses Transfer of $5.2B Lawsuit To State Court

RADIO ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
REPEATER TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
RAFFLES TOWN: Founding Members Sue Singapore Club For False Prospectus
SOUTH AFRICA: Suit For Disabled Causes Social Grants Reinstatement
STORAGE USA: Denies Pending TN Securities Suits' Allegations

TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
THORN AMERICAS INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Consumer Suits in New York
UNITED STATES: Changes In Managing Indian Trust Fund Money Ordered
VIXEL CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Settlement For Securities Suits Approved By DE Court
ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. New York


                              *********


AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: 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 Airnet Communications
Corporation (NASDAQ: ANCC) between December 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) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (2) Volpe Brown Whelan & Co.,

     (3) Hambrecht & Quist, LLC,

     (4) R. Lee Hamilton, Jr., and

     (5) Gerald Y. Hattori.

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, Airnet commenced an initial public offering of
5,500,000 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 pospectus 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 details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: ANCC@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Berger Montague Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC filed a class action suit 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 purchasers of Company stock in or
traceable to its February 17, 2000 initial public offering or in the
open market from February 17, 2000 through April 10, 2001.

This is the only action filed on behalf of purchasers of Apropos 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 in
February 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.

Apropos and its principal officers and directors allegedly violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of l933 by making
material misrepresentations in the prospectus and registration
statement 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, Apropos' statements about its goals and the uses for the
proceeds of the IPO were 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
the Company at the time of the IPO.

Specifically, the prospectus misrepresented that these two were both
active members of the executive management team and Apropos' 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 Apropos to being in charge of two employees
responsible for designing and implementing customer interfaces.

At the time of the IPO, the Company's 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 share price declined to $2.98 from a class period
high of $70 near the beginning of the class period.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick,
Elizabeth Fox or 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


AUTOBYTEL INC.: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Autobytel, Inc. will vigorously oppose several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York alleging federal securities violations.

The suits names as defendants, the Company, certain of its current
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the Company's
initial public offering.

The suits similarly allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the suits allege that:

     (1) the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
         Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
         Exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
         agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
         stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices; and

     (2) the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering
         was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws
         because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The suits have been consolidated into a single action, and Autobytel
is not required to respond to plaintiffs' claims before a consolidated
complaint is filed.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
complaints.


BAAN COMPANY: Shareholders Sue For Securities Acts Violations in DC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Baan Company NV faces a consolidated securities class action commenced
in October 1998, in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

The suit arose from seven lawsuits brought in the same court, similarly
alleging that the Company made purportedly false and misleading
statements about its operations. The suits were later consolidated.

In June 2000, the court dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction the claims of those plaintiffs who neither reside in the
United States nor made their stock purchases in the United States, and
the litigation is proceeding with respect to the remaining claims.

The plaintiffs also moved to certify a class including (subject to
certain exceptions) of all purchasers of Baan's securities between
January 28, 1997 and October 12, 1998, who:

     (1) are current residents of the United States,

     (2) were residents of the United States at the time of such
         purchase, or

     (3) purchased such securities within the United States, including
         securities purchased on the NASDAQ National Market System.

The briefing on this motion is still pending.

Baan denied the suit's allegations.


CARGILL INC.: Black Employees Allege Racial Discrimination in MN Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargill Inc., the agricultural business that is one of the world's
largest private companies, is facing a discrimination class action, The
Wall Street Journal and New York Times News Service reported recently.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis on behalf
of an estimated 1,000 blacks who work or have worked in salaried
positions as managers or professionals in the last six years.

The suit, commenced by 25 current and former African-American
employees, charged the company with widespread racial discrimination.

This is the second time the Company faces accusations of racial
discrimination. In 1984, it settled for $1.2 million a discrimination
class action brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.

In their suit, the employees point to company-wide evaluation systems
that they contend "favor employees who `look and talk' like Cargill's
white executives."

The plaintiffs allege that these systems help determine pay and
promotions at Cargill.

Lawrence Schaefer, lawyer for the plaintiffs, asserts the evaluation
systems are "so poorly constructed and poorly operated," that they
place a lower value on work done by black employees.

Further, many of the employees in the lawsuit allege that the systems
have led to their having been denied promotions, to unwarranted
dismissals and to lower pay for the African-American employees.

Cargill operated under a court-supervised consent decree that set goals
for hiring and promoting women and African-Americans as a result of the
1984 suit, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report.

The new suit alleges that the Company continued in a pattern of
discrimination after the consent decree expired in August 1989, thereby
carrying forward its long tradition of discrimination.

Cargill executives, however, deny any discrimination has taken place
and state the Company is committed to a diverse workplace and defend
its evaluation systems.

"They are based on objective, job-related criteria," said Nancy Siska,
a corporate Vice President.   Cargill would not discuss the number of
black senior executives it employs, but said there was a lot of
diversity  among its senior managers at roughly 90 business units in
the United States and around the world.

Robert Lumpkins, a Vice Chairman for Cargill, made a sweeping denial of
racial discrimination, saying "We don't have systems that discriminate;
we don't have policies that discriminate and we don't have a culture
that discriminates."

The 25 current and former employees suing the company represent "a wide
range of circumstances," he said, including some whose performance was
"objectively unsatisfactory," The New York Times News Service recently
reported.

Addressing the period subsequent to the consent decree, Lumpkins said,
"We met all the terms of the agreement in 1985, (and) since then, the
company has invested in a broad set of initiatives to create
opportunities for minorities."

He added that Cargill's tracking system is similar to those in many
large corporations and objectively measures job-related skills and
performance.

He says this ".creates a system based on merit that gives equal
opportunity."


CHEEKTOWAGA CENTRAL: Norfolk Southern Sues Over Property Assessments
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Railroad has initiated a federal class action against
The Cheektowaga Central School District and several municipalities and
organizations regarding property assessments.

Tom DeBoy, the District's attorney, told the Cheektowaga Times that it
is difficult to determine what Norfolk Southern's complaint is with the
District.

However, he said that he discovered from the Town Assessor's Office
that there are two parcels of property potentially affected by the
suit.

The district owns properties located near the Amtrak Station in Depew
with assessed value of nearly $7 million.  Deboy believes the railroad
may have found the assessed value too high.

"I won't even speculate as to what portion of that nearly $7 million
that they're seeking to reduce," added DeBoy.

The first group named in the suit was the New York State Office of Real
Property Services, who has significant control over the maximum amounts
that can be taxed and the set the value, Deboy said.

The complaint says the office is overvaluing the properties, added
DeBoy.

The lawsuit was also brought up at the October 29 joint meeting of the
Cheektowaga School Districts.  The District has also been named in
another lawsuit filed by the CSX Railroad.

"Because the decision made in Albany has an effect across the State
explains why this was ideal...to bring all the parts together (in one
suit)," said DeBoy.

DeBoy recommended the Board allow him to monitor the lawsuit before
taking action.  He added that prior to September, there was "talk" of a
legislative solution to the CSX lawsuit.


ESC MEDICAL: Parties Drafting S.D. NY Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
ESC Medical Systems, Inc. is working with plaintiffs in a consolidated
securities class action to draft a formal agreement to settle the suit
for an undisclosed amount.

The suit arose from a number of suits filed in the fall of 1998 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July 1999, a consolidated amended complaint was filed naming the
Company, subsidiary Laser Industries, Inc., Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,
and several current and former directors and officers as defendants.

The suit alleges:

     (1) irregularities in the way in which the Company reported its
         financial results and disclosed certain facts throughout 1997
         and 1998;

     (2) "tipping" of non-public information to Salomon Smith Barney
         Inc. in September 1998.

In December 1999, ESC moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. Later in August 2000, the Court entered an order dismissing
the claim against the Laser Industries director and officer defendants
and denying the remaining dismissal counts.

The final settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of the
formal agreement. In addition, the final agreement must be approved by
the court, a process which will likely take several months.


FATBRAIN.COM: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Fatbrain.com, Inc. (formerly
NasdaqNM:FATB) between November 19, 1998 and November 16, 2000,
inclusive.

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

The action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges that the Company (which is not named as a
defendant) and certain of its officers and directors at the time of its
IPO violated the federal securities laws.

The defendants allegedly issued and sold Fatbrain.com stock pursuant to
the initial public offering without disclosing to investors that
several of the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriters:

     (1) Banc of America Securities LLC,

     (2) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

     (3) Needham & Company, Inc.,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (5) Chase H&Q (formerly known as Hambrecht & Quist LLC),

     (6) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc.

allocated Company shares to customers at the IPO price of $10.00 per
share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$10.00, the defendant underwriters' brokerage customers allegedly had
to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
progressively higher prices.

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

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits
by buying Company stock at the $10.00 IPO price and then selling it
later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high
as $24.50 during its first day of trading.

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

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

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

For more information, contact Lovell & Stewart by Phone: (212-608-1900)
or visit the firm's Website: www.lovellstewart.com


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Texas Court To Dismiss Pending Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
i2 Technologies, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against them in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

The suit arose from several class actions commenced early this year
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The cases were later consolidated, and in August 2001, plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint, that charged the defendants with
violating the federal securities laws.

The suit specifically alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making
purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the
characteristics and implementation of certain of i2 software products.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of purchasers of i2 common stock during the period between May
4, 2000 and February 26, 2001.


INAMED CORPORATION: CA Suits Relating To Breast Implants Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed two class action suits against breast implant
manufacturer, Inamed Corporation.

The suits were commenced in August 2000 titled Kerr et al. v. Inamed
Corp. et al. and Vaernes v. Inamed Corp. et al., also naming other
breast implant manufacturers as defendants.

The suits allege personal injury claims arising out of the development
and sale of Trilucent breast implants, which were principally sold
outside the U.S., although clinical trials were conducted in the
country.

Both suits seek "medical monitoring" and monetary damages. The Kerr
suit was filed on behalf of overseas implant patients, while the
Vaernes action was filed on behalf of U.S. clinical trials patients.

In June 2001, the court dismissed the Kerr case on the grounds of forum
non conveniens, or lack of a convenient forum.

As a condition of this dismissal, Inamed and several of the other
defendants agreed to litigate any claims brought by plaintiffs Crane,
Kerr and Campbell in the United Kingdom.

The Kerr plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to dismiss the
suit for forum non conveniens.

In August 28, 2001, the court also dismissed the Vaernes action for
failing to state a claim against the Company upon which relief could be
granted.

The Court entered a similar order with respect to other defendants in
the action and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
against the defendants, including the company.

Last month, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, but did not
include any claims against Inamed. Consequently, the Company is not
presently a party to the Vaernes suit.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: New Jersey Minority Employees Sue For Racial Bias
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two employees of Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in Newark, New Jersey, representing all of the Company's African
American and Hispanic white collar employees.

The suit alleges that the health care giant discriminated against
hundreds of minority employees by not promoting them or paying them
what whites were paid in comparable positions, reported the New York
Times News Service recently.

The two employees named as plaintiffs in the case are Linda Morgan, an
African-American woman, who is a manager at Ethicon, a Johnson &
Johnson subsidiary in Somerville, New Jersey; and Nilda Gutierrez, a
Hispanic woman who works as a recruiting consultant for Johnson &
Johnson.

Morgan has worked for the Company since 1979 and claims she has been
repeatedly denied promotions, despite positive performance evaluations.

Morgan said she had asked her white supervisors for a promotion in
December, but despite qualifications that she said were equal or
superior to those of five white employees considered for the job, she
said she did not even receive an interview.

Gutierrez, who has a bachelor's degree, claimed she was earning far
less than white employees in comparable positions.  Gutierrez was hired
to a full-time position in 1997 at a salary of $40,000 and her current
salary is $41,400.

According to the suit, Johnson & Johnson hired a white female recruiter
in 1999, with no college degree, and paid her about $65,000.

The lawsuit claims that the Company's practice of not posting job
openings for high-level positions results in "scores of jobs being
filled through an informal, behind-the-scenes process in which
predominantly white managers handpick favored white candidates."

The lawsuit claims that Johnson & Johnson has known, since at least
1997, that its managers were discriminating against black and Hispanic
employees but has done little about it.

The lawsuit further claims that the Company's 15-member Board of
Directors, which includes one black executive and no Hispanics, is
partially at fault for what it calls a "company-wide pattern of
discrimination."

The suit contends that the board does not require senior management to
report to it on whether the Company is providing equal opportunities to
all employees.

According to the complaint, discrimination at Johnson & Johnson begins
when minority employees are hired and given lower starting salaries
than white employees with equal or lesser qualifications.

The bias continues, the lawsuit alleges, when minority employees are
not promoted or given raises comparable to those awarded to white
colleagues in similar positions.


LIBERTY SATELLITE: Acquisition By Liberty Media Spurs Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Satellite and Technology, Inc. faces two class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court in Arapaho County, Colorado and eight suits
filed in the Court of Chancery in New Castle County, Delaware.

The suits were commenced after parent company, Liberty Media
Corporation, announced last month its offer to acquire by merger all
the issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock that
Liberty Media does not already own.

In the proposed merger, each share of Company common stock would be
exchanged for 0.09 of a share of Liberty Media Series A common stock.

The suits names Liberty Media, the Company and members of the board of
directors of the Company (and in one case certain officers of the
Company) as defendants.

The suits allege various breaches of duty and other claims in
connection with the proposed merger.  The plaintiffs generally seek
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and if the transaction is
consummated, an order rescinding the transaction or damages.

Liberty Satellite believes that the pending suits are premature and
without merit.


LIQUID AUDIO: Shareholders Sue For S.D. NY Securities Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Audio, Inc. says it has meritorious defenses to the securities
class actions pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suits were commenced in July 2001 against the Company, certain of
our officers and directors and three underwriters in our initial public
offering.

The suits allege:

     (1) violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
         amended against all defendants;

     (2) violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act against the
         Individual Defendants; and

     (3) violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and
         Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the underwriters.

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of Liquid Audio's common
stock between July 8, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

These lawsuits are currently pending for coordinated pretrial
proceedings. There have been no significant developments yet in these
lawsuits.


LOS ANGELES: Police Union Charges LAPD Blacklists Officers
----------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Police Protective League recently filed a lawsuit
against the Los Angeles Police Department and Chief Bernard Parks, in
Superior Court, charging the department's leadership with creating a
blacklist of officers it deems "unpromotable," according to a recent
Associated Press report.

The lawsuit names two officers, Darryl Brown and Rodney Gregson, as
plaintiffs and submits class-action allegations on behalf of all past,
present and future officers who have been denied promotion.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, further alleges that:

     (1) candidates for promotion are subjected to evaluations beyond
         those designated by the Civil Service Commission and
         department policy;

     (2) that the candidates are reviewed by confidential boards of
         inquiry that are influenced by Parks - boards that have been
         converted by Parks into "backroom tribunals," which are not
         authorized under the city charter.

The lawsuit says the dispute arose when the promotional applications of
the two lead plaintiffs were subjected to one of these confidential
boards.

"The analogy to the studio `blacklists' of the forties and fifties is a
fitting comparison," said Devonne L. Midson, attorney for the League.

"The officers wake up one day to find that their careers have
essentially been ruined, and they have no way of finding out why or
challenging the decision-makers."

Officer Don Parks, a police spokesman, declined to comment, saying the
Department does not discuss pending litigation.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Squitieri Fearon Files Securities Suit in N.D. NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Squitieri and Fearon LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf
of purchasers of Lucent Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: LU and LU7G06,
LU5K08, LU6A28, LU6C29) debt securities during the period December 21,
2000 through March 27, 2001.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New Jersey, charges the Company and these individuals with
violating federal securities laws:

     (1) Henry Schacht, CEO and Chairman, and

     (2) Deborah Hopkins, who was Lucent's Chief Financial Officer

The defendants allegedly misrepresented and concealed material facts
concerning the Company's operations, including the state of its Agere
business and vendor financing program.

The suit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Lucent's
vendor financing program had crippled its financial condition and that
their efforts to refinance their debt and to realize the highest
possible price for the Agere business were in jeopardy.

The plaintiff purchased the Lucent 7.25% Notes due July 15, 2006 and
alleges that he was damaged by defendants' misconduct. Plaintiff brings
the case on behalf of purchasers of:

     (i) the Company's 7.25% notes due July 15, 2006;

    (ii) the Company's 6.9% Notes due July 15, 2001,

   (iii) the Company's 6.50% Debentures due January 15, 2028;

    (iv) the Company's 5.50% Notes due November 15, 2008; and

     (v) the Company's 6.45% Debentures due March 15, 2029

The plaintiff claims that defendants made misrepresentations of
material fact in these public statements:

     (a) the December 21, 2000 statement that "Agere is not suffering
         from any of the problems that Lucent's service provider
         business is."

     (b) the January 24, 2001 press release announcing a "seven-point
         restructuring plan" that failed to disclose the substantial
         decline in Agere's operating results or the adverse impact on
         Lucent of its vendor financing plan;

     (c) the February 7, 2001 press release stating that Lucent's
         "fastest growing unit (Agere) will" raise $7.4 billion in its
         upcoming IPO.  Defendants failed to disclose that Lucent's
         "fastest growing unit" was in serious trouble and that Agere's
         IPO could not raise anywhere near $7.4 billion;

     (d) the February 7, 2001 representation that the Agere IPO "will"
         raise as much as $7.4 million;


     (e) the February 13, 2001 statement by Lucent's spokesperson
         assuring investors that Lucent no longer had any liquidity
         issues; and


     (f) the February 20, 2001 statements that Lucent was "confident
         that we will complete the financing on schedule by February
         22, 2001."

For more details, contact Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. by Mail: 521 Fifth
Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10175 or by Phone: 1-800-432-8174
(toll-free) or 646-487-3049


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Lionel Glancy Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel Z. Glancy commenced a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of Nanophase Technologies Corporation
between April 5, 2001 and October 24, 2001, inclusive.

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

Among other things, the suit claims that defendants' material omissions
and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the nature of the Nanophase's revenues and earnings caused
its stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting enormous
damages on investors.

For further details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224 (toll-free) by Fax: (310) 201-9160 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.


OKLAHOMA STATE: Suit Over Retirement Benefits Could Cost $44 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution of a class action suit filed by Oklahoma State University
(OSU) faculty members against University officials and Oklahoma Teacher
Retirement System could cost the University $44 million.

OSU faculty filed the suit last week in Oklahoma County District Court
after University officials and the retirement system cut their
retirement benefits.

Charles Edgley, chairman of the OSU Faculty Council, told Associated
Press recently that the benefits were lost when the state Legislature
restructured the system as it was on the brink of insolvency in the
mid-1990s.

The suit alleges that the state improperly imposed caps on salary
levels used to determine retirement benefits, and broke employment
contracts when OSU stopped contributions to TIAA-CREF.

TIAA-CREF is a "portable" investment plan somewhat like a 401(k). The
state fund is more like Social Security, paying out a defined benefit
based on salary and years of service.

Those contributions were shifted into the Oklahoma Teacher Retirement
System, a change that left faculty with far less retirement pay, said
OSU chemistry Professor Mark Rockley.

"With the average faculty member, we're talking a difference of
$100,000," Rockley said.

Edgley said he believes the legal action is "not necessarily
unfriendly" toward OSU administration and that he believes the dispute
can be settled amicably.

"We're meeting with (the administration) on the 28th with our attorneys
present," he said.

In a statement, OSU President James Halligan said officials are trying
to figure out how the concerns of people who have been most adversely
affected by the situation can be addressed.

"We share the concern of the faculty and staff about their retirement
system, and we intend to work together to resolve their concerns,"
Halligan said.

Tom Beavers, Executive Secretary of the Oklahoma Teacher Retirement
System, disputed the allegations, saying "We will defend ourselves
vigorously.They're getting more today than they ever would have."


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Sued For Unfair Business Practices In San Francisco
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacificare Health Systems faces a consumer class action filed in San
Francisco Superior Court on behalf of all enrollees in their health
care plans other than Medicare and Medicaid enrollees.

The suit was commenced in November 1999, against the Company, its
California subsidiary, and FHP International Inc. and was later
amended, omitting FHP as a defendant and relating to the period from
November 2, 1995 to the present.

The suit charges Pacificare with violations of California law and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act by engaging in unfair business
acts and false, deceptive and misleading advertising.

The suit also alleges that the Company received unjust payments as a
result of its conduct.

Pacificare asked the court to compel arbitration, which the court
denied.

The Company promptly filed an appeal regarding this denial, but the
California Court of Appeals of affirmed the state court's decision.

The Company has filed a petition asking the California Supreme Court to
review the Appellate Court's affirmation.

The Company vehemently denied suit allegations in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Refuses To Certify Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, in Seattle, recently denied
class-action status in a case alleging that Microsoft Corporation
discriminates against employees based on race and gender.

However, the plaintiffs still will be able to pursue individual
discrimination claims under the ruling released by Judge Pechman,
according to the Associated Press's recent report.

The ruling stems from discrimination cases filed on behalf of Monique
Donaldson, Ronald A. Douglas, Landruff E. Trent and Janice Harris.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for
comment.

Microsoft said it was pleased with the ruling and would try to be even
more committed to promoting diversity in its work force.

The Company also faces separate allegations of race discrimination in a
lawsuit filed in January in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.


NEXTCARD INC.: Kaplan Fox Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer commenced a securities class action against
Nextcard, Inc., and certain of the Company's officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the common stock of Nextcard, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXCD) between March 30,
2000 and October 30, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants knew but
failed to disclose that the Nextcard's financial statements were
materially false and misleading and violated GAAP because, among other
reasons, defendants:

     (1) improperly failed to adequately record provisions for
         NextCard's loan loss reserves;

     (2) overstated the gains recorded on the securitization of
         NextCard's credit card receivables; and

     (3) improperly classified certain losses on loans as "fraud
         losses" rather than as "credit losses."

Because of this improper accounting, the Company's reported earnings
for fiscal 1999, 2000, and the first two quarters of fiscal 2001 were
materially misstated.

The truth was revealed before the market opened on October 31, 2001,
when the Company disclosed for the first time that federal bank
regulators from the Office of The Comptroller of the Currency and
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had ordered Nextcard to amend its
accounting practices, increase its protection against bad loans, exit
certain business lines, and cease certain marketing practices.

As a result of the required changes, the Company disclosed that bank
examiners had declared it "significantly undercapitalized," according
to FDIC guidelines, which means that it will not be able to make most
business decisions without the approval of bank regulators and will be
restricted in its ability to open new accounts.

This news caused the price of Nextcard's stock to plummet drastically
from $5.35 per share to $0.87 per share, a one-day decline of 84%.

For more information, contact Jonathan K. Levine, Christine Fox, or
Laurence D. King, by Phone: 415-336-1238 or visit the firm's Website:
www.kaplanfox.com


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Court Dismisses Two Securities Suits In C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed two securities class actions pending against managed care
provider, Pacificare Health Systems.

Shareholders commenced the first suit against the Company and several
of its directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of Company stock
from February 14, 1997 through November 24, 1997.

The suit arose after Pacificare announced in November 24, 1997 that
earnings for the fourth quarter of 1997 would be lower than expected.

The suit alleged that the Company previously omitted and/or
misrepresented material facts with respect to the Company's acquisition
of FHP International Corporation and its financial position.

Last October 2001, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice and
without giving the plaintiffs leave to amend the suit.

Shareholders also filed several class actions in November 2000 against
Pacificare and several of its present and former directors and
executive officers in the same court.

The complaints related to the period between October 27, 1999 and
October 10, 2000 and charged the Company with making false projections
about its financial performance in 2000.

The suits were later consolidated in April 2001, and in June 2001,
Pacificare filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Last month, the court dismissed the complaint but gave the plaintiffs
permission to file an amended complaint.

The Company denied all allegations in the suit and stated its intention
to defend the actions vigorously in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


PREDICTIVE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Predictive Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PRDS) 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, 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, Predictive commenced an initial public offering of
4,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $18
per share.  Subsequently, in March 2000, the Company made a public
offering of 3,800,000 shares.

In connection with each offering, Predictive filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectuses were materially
false and misleading because they 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 the secondary offering; and

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

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


PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: Settles California Suits By Issuing 1.4M Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prolong International Corporation settled a securities class action and
a derivative suit pending since 1998 in the United States District
Court in San Diego, California.

Company shareholders filed the suit in connection with its acquisition
of the assets of EPL Pro-long, Inc.

The suits named as defendants, the Company, subsidiaries EPL Pro-long,
Inc., Prolong International Corporation, Prolong Super Lubricants, and
certain of their former and current officers and directors

The suit alleges:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) certain fraud claims,

     (3) civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claims,

     (4) breach of fiduciary duty, and

     (5) conversion

Under the settlement, Prolong will issue approximately 1,490,500 shares
of its common stock to EPL Pro-long, Inc., one-third of these shares
are to be distributed to the plaintiff's attorneys and the remaining
two-thirds to EPL shareholders.

The settlement effectively dismisses all claims against the defendants.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suit was settled without any admission of
wrongdoing or liability on the part of the defendants.

Prolong also said that settlement will not have any adverse affect on
its financial position or results of operation.


PSS WORLD: Flurry Of M.D. FL Securities Suits "Without Merit"
-------------------------------------------------------------
PSS World Medical vehemently denied allegations in 10 securities suit
filed against it and its former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The suits are titled:

     (1) Bordeaux v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.;

     (2) Gold v. PSS World Medical, Inc., et al.;

     (3) McIntosh v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.;

     (4) Rothbart v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.;

     (5) Schaechter v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.;

     (6) Van Den Haag v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.;

     (7) Rodighiero v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.;

     (8) Foster v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.;

     (9) Weiler v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.; and

    (10) Adams v. PSS World Medical, Inc. et al.

The suits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired
PSS' common stock at various times during the period between October
26, 1999 and October 3, 2000.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suits also allege the defendants issued false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's financial condition.

The plaintiffs further allege that because of the issuance of false and
misleading statements and/or failure to disclose material facts, the
price of the PSS' common stock was artificially inflated.

Last September 13, 2001, certain plaintiffs filed a motion for
consolidation of the above actions and for appointment of lead
Plaintiff and lead counsel, which remains pending.

PSS labeled the suits "without merit". However, it cannot give the
assurance that the litigation will be ultimately resolved on terms
favorable to the Company.

PSS World Medical, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a specialty marketer
and distributor of medical products to physicians, alternate-site
imaging centers, long-term care providers, home care providers, and
hospitals.


PURDUE PHARMA: Judge Refuses Transfer of $5.2B Lawsuit To State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit against Purdue Pharma will remain in the United States
District Court in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, ruled Judge James Jones, the
Roanoke Times and World News reported.

The suit accused the Company of causing rampant crime and addiction in
far Southwest Virginia with its potent painkiller OxyContin.

The suit was initially filed in Lee County Circuit Court, but the
Company had the case transferred to Big Stone Gap, on the grounds that
none of the defendants were from Virginia.  Lawsuits involving parties
from different states are generally heard in federal court.

However, the plaintiffs, hoping to have the case sent back to Lee
County, had sought to add as defendant, Physician Access Inc., based in
Scott County, Virginia.

Physician Access is owned by Dr. Richard Norton, who formerly lived in
Kingsport, Tennessee, before being sent to federal prison on fraud
charges last year.

Purdue Pharma countered this move by arguing that the late addition of
a Virginia-based defendant was a sham designed solely to get the case
back into state court.

"The timing raises a red flag that the plaintiff may be forum
shopping," Judge Jones wrote in his opinion, declining to add Physician
Access as defendant and also declining to return the case to state
court.

Company attorney, William Eskridge, also had argued that Dederal
Court was the proper venue because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration regulates OxyContin.

Plaintiffs' attorney, Emmitt Yeary hoped to try the case in Lee County,
one of the areas hardest hit by OxyContin abuse. He said he would
pursue the case in Federal Court.

"This is a very important case," Yeary said.  "This is a very dangerous
drug."

The lawsuit, which attorneys hope to broaden into a class-action that
would represent hundreds of Virginians, claims that Purdue Pharma
promoted the drug as a miracle painkiller while failing to warn of its
highly addictive side, thereby causing its users to get hooked on the
medication.

Since 1997, there have been at least 55 fatal overdoses in which the
drug's active ingredient was the primary cause of death or a
contributing factor, according to the State Medical Examiner's Office.

Police say crime in the coalfields has soared as abusers have become
addicted. Crushing OxyContin tablets and snorting or injecting the
powder has become the method of abuse.

The Company replies that it should not be blamed for illegal use of
OxyContin, which is a highly effective painkiller when taken as
prescribed.

The lawsuit claims that some people became addicted after taking the
drug exactly as told by their doctors.

Laurence Hammack, the writer of the report appearing in the Roanoke
Times can be reached at 981-3239 or laurenceh@roanoke.com .


RADIO ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Radio One, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ROIA) between May 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (3) BT Alex. Brown Incorporated,

     (4) NationsBanc Montgomery Securities, LLC,

     (5) Prudential Securities Incorporated,

     (6) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,

     (7) Bank of America Securities, LLC,

     (8) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (9) Alfred C. Liggins, III,

    (10) Scott R. Royster, and

    (11) Catherine L. Hughes.

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 5, 1999, Radio One commenced an initial public offering of
6,500,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $24
per share. On November 12, 1999, it commenced a secondary public
offering of 5,400,000 of shares of common stock, at an offering price
of $59.25 per share.

The Company filed registration statements with the SEC in connection
with the offerings, 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 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 or by E-mail: ROIA@bernlieb.com.


REPEATER TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Repeater
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:RPTR) between August 8, 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:

     (1) Banc of America Securities,

     (2) The Bear Stearns Companies,

     (3) CIBC World Markets,

     (4) Dain Rauscher,

     (5) Deutsche Banc Alex Brown,

     (6) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (7) J.P. Morgan Chase,

     (8) Prudential Securities,

     (9) Thomas Weisel Partners and

    (10) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray

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, Repeater commenced an initial public offering of 4.75
million of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $9 per
share.

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

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

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

    (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 further details, 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 REPEATER


RAFFLES TOWN: Founding Members Sue Singapore Club For False Prospectus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4,895 Raffles Town Club founding members served a writ of summons to
the High Court and the club's lawyers, demanding a full refund of the
$28,000 they each paid as joining fees, the Business Times of Singapore
recently reported.

The plaintiffs are suing the club on the grounds of misrepresentation
and/or breach of contract.

In November 1996, Raffles sent out a prospectus inviting some members
of the public to join the club.  The prospectus comprised a letter of
invitation, a document giving general information and a brochure.

The plaintiffs base their claims on representations made in these
documents, including representations, among others, that:

     (1) the club would be without peer in terms of size of facilities
         and sheer opulence;

     (2) the club's exclusive and limited memberships would be fully
         transferable;

     (3) there would be two classes of individual members - a limited
         number of exclusive transferable founder members at $28,000,
         and a second class of members who would pay $40,000 for their
         membership.

The suit argues that these representations became part of the
contractual terms between members and Raffles.

The plaintiffs, led by public relations consultant Alan Lee, claim they
were misled into joining what they thought was an "exclusive" club for
5,000 to 7,000 members.

During the recent highly publicized court battle between former Company
directors for control of the proprietary club, the members discovered
they are part of a crowd of 19,000 persons.

Company director Robert Lai said "If you had told us in November 1996
that there would be 19,000 members, and we joined the club with that
knowledge, we would not be unhappy."

Lai was one of the members who led the class action, but has since
dropped out. He bought his membership on the open market and does not
qualify as a founding member.

The plaintiffs stand to recover $137 million in joining fees, the
biggest claim against a local private club. The lawsuit is the largest
class action of its kind in Singapore.


SOUTH AFRICA: Suit For Disabled Causes Social Grants Reinstatement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit started by the Legal Resources Center on behalf
of disabled Eastern Cape residents had an unexpected positive result,
when the center successfully managed to obtain the reinstatement of
social grants to the disabled.

The provincial Welfare Department had to undertake a detailed
investigation, which not only saw that the rights of deserving
individuals reinstated, but unearthed more than 120 public servants who
have been getting disability grants as well as their salaries.

A Business Day report said that a number of disabled people living in
the Eastern Cape suffered real hardship when their social grants were
unilaterally suspended in 1996, apparently the result of a poorly
devised plan to root out fraudulent claims.

The public servants are not likely to recover their social grants,
disabled or not. In terms of the law, disabled people who earn more
than R12000 a year do not qualify for social pensions, and no Eastern
Cape public servant earns less than R1000 a month.


STORAGE USA: Denies Pending TN Securities Suits' Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
Storage USA labeled "without merit" several securities suits pending in
the Chancery Court in Memphis, Tennessee relating to the modification
of the standstill agreement with Security Capital Group, Inc.

The suits were commenced early this month, naming the Company, Security
Capital Group, Inc., SC Realty, Inc. and the Company's Board of
Directors as defendants.

The suits allege that the defendants have violated a duty of fair
dealing and other fiduciary duties to the shareholders in modifying the
agreement with Security Capital and considering Security Capital's
proposal.

The suits seek:

     (1) to enjoin the consummation of a sale of the Company to
         Security Capital; and

     (2) if such sale is consummated, to rescind it and recover
         rescissionary and other damages suffered by the plaintiffs as
         a result of the transaction.

Storage USA has not yet been served with all of these lawsuits and has
not filed responsive pleadings as of this date in any of the lawsuits.



TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Transmeta Corporation
(NASDAQ:TMTA) between November 6, 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 November 2000, Transmeta commenced an initial public offering of
13,000,000 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:

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


THORN AMERICAS INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Consumer Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental company and Rent-A-Center subsidiary, Thorn Americas, Inc.,
faces a consumer class action commenced in November 1997 in New York
State Court for allegedly unfair business practices.

The suit alleges the Company failed to disclose effective interest
under New York consumer protection laws and that Thorn Americas
violated consumer laws by:

     (1) excessive and unconscionable pricing,

     (2) late fees, harassment,

     (3) undisclosed charges, and

     (4) the ease of use and accuracy of its payment records.

The plaintiffs seek:

     (i) class certification;

    (ii) injunctive relief requiring the Company to cease certain
         marketing practices, price their rental purchase contracts in
         certain ways, and disclose effective interest;

   (iii) unspecified compensatory and punitive damages;

    (iv) rescission of the class members contracts;

     (v) an order placing in trust all moneys received by the Company
         in connection with the rental of merchandise during the class
         period;

    (vi) treble damages, attorney's fees, filing fees and costs of
         suit;

   (vii) pre- and post-judgment interest; and

  (viii) any further relief granted by the court.

The proposed class originally included all New York residents who were
party to Thorn America's rent-to-own contracts from November 26, 1991
through November 26, 1997.

In the class certification briefing, however, the plaintiff
acknowledged claims under the General Business Law in New York are
subject to a three-year statute of limitations, and is pursuing a class
of all persons in New York who paid for rental merchandise since
November 26, 1994.

In November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both parties from
the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment, the Appellate
Division of the State of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
based on the alleged failure to disclose an effective interest rate.

However, the plaintiff's other claims were not dismissed. The plaintiff
again moved to certify a statewide class in December 2000.

The court heard the motion for class certification on November 7, 2001,
at which time the court took the motion under advisement.

Thorn America is vigorously defending the suit and believes that the
Appellate Division decision is a significant and favorable development
in the matter.


UNITED STATES: Changes In Managing Indian Trust Fund Money Ordered
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior Secretary Gale Norton has ordered sweeping changes to a system
that was created to manage billions of dollars in royalties from use of
Indian land, but continues to fail in its mission, reported the
Associated Press recently.

In an effort to meet and transform this failure, Norton has created the
Bureau of Indian Trust Assets Management and will appoint an official,
reporting directly to Norton, to manage the overhaul of the existing
trust system.

This action comes beneath the looming threat that Norton and other
government officials could be held in contempt of court by U.S.
District Court Judge Royce Lamberth for failing to comply with the
court-ordered reform of the mismanaged system of Indian trust funds.

Late last Wednesday, on the threshold of the Thursday, November 15th
deadline for producing evidence that reform of the trust fund system
was underway or else a contempt of court order would be issued, the
Department of Interior notified Judge Lamberth of the changes that
would take place to get reform of the Indian trust system "on track."

"I understand that reorganization by itself does not solve the numerous
problems of trust reform, but it does provide an avenue for developing
solutions," Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles said in court
documents.  He also said he has taken temporary responsibility for
trust reform.

In 1994, Congress ordered the department to clean up the mismanaged
system established in 1887 to manage royalties from mining, cattle
grazing, oil drilling and timber harvesting on Indian land.  The
proceeds were supposed to be paid to the Indian beneficiaries.

In 1996, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 300,000 American
Indians, alleging the government had squandered at least $10 billion in
Indian royalties and possibly many times that amount.  No one seemed to
know where the money was.

Nearly two years ago, Lamberth ordered the Interior to piece together
how much it owes the Indians and to overhaul its accounting system.
Neither of these happened, despite $614 million spent by Interior in
the effort, according to a series of reports issued in recent months by
a court-appointed monitor.

Moreover, say the reports, Interior officials have misled the court
about the status of the reform efforts.

The Indians' attorneys want nearly 50 government officials held in
contempt and possibly jailed on grounds that they have obstructed the
reforms and misled the court.

At a hearing two weeks ago, an exasperated Judge Lamberth said the
actions of the current and previous administrations showed a blatant
contempt for the court's orders.

He thereupon told a government attorney it would be better to "to throw
yourself on the mercy of the court," than to contest the contempt
motions.

Government attorneys were expected to contest the allegations of
contempt in filings that were due last Thursday, November 15.  They
will probably bring to the judge's attention that their filing of the
previous Wednesday contains plans for sweeping reform.

In 1999, Judge Lamberth held President Clinton's Interior Secretary
Bruce Babbit and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in contempt of court
and fined them $600,000 for failing to turn over documents related to
the case.


VIXEL CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Vixel Corporation
(NASDAQ:VIXL) between October 1, 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, Vixel commenced an initial public offering of
4,300,000 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 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


ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Settlement For Securities Suits Approved By DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court, in and for New Castle County approved the
settlement in two securities class actions filed by stockholders of
media company Ziff-Davis, Inc.

The suits were commenced in September 2000 against the Company and all
of the members of its board of directors, as it was constituted in
September 1998.

The suits uniformly alleged that an allegedly improper repricing of
employee stock options in September 1998 harmed Ziff-Davis' non-
employee stockholders.

More specifically, the suits alleged that but for the allegedly
improper re-pricing employees would not have exercised their options,
there would be fewer outstanding shares.  Therefore, the proportional
share of proceeds received by non-employee stockholders from the Ziff-
Davis/CNET Networks, Inc. merger would have been larger.

The parties agreed to settle the actions for an undisclosed amount and
the agreement received court approval on September 11, 2001.


ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed against Ziff-
Davis Inc. have signed a memorandum of understanding to settle the suit
for an undisclosed amount.

The suit arose from eight securities class actions commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its directors and officers.

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of Ziff-Davis stock from
April 28,1998 through October 8,1998 and allege violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The suits related to the Company's registration statement filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to its initial public
offering commenced in April 1998.

The suits alleged that the registration statement contained false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose facts that could have
indicated an impending decline in Ziff-Davis' revenue.

In January 1999, the court ordered the actions consolidated and
required the filing of a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint was filed in March 1999 and only
alleged claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Final settlement papers are being drafted prior to court approval.




                              *********


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  * * *