CAR_Public/011123.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
             Friday, November 23, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 229

                           Headlines

AUCTION HOUSES: Former Sotheby's CEO Lied To Co-Workers, Media
AVANTGO INC.: Securities Suit Could Harm Business, Financial Condition
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Welfare Fund Alleges Fraudulent Drug Pricing
CANADA: High Court To Decide If Welfare Program Violated Human Rights
CHARTER SCHOOLS: Pennsylvania School Districts Challenge Cyber Schools

CHOICE ONE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
COMMERCE ONE: Sued For Securities Law Violations In S.D. New York
DELTA AIRLINES: Benefits Suit Transferred To Georgia Federal Court
DELTA AIRLINES: Passengers File Suit Due To Fraudulent Travel Vouchers
DIGITAL IMPACT: Sued In S.D. NY For Federal Securities Violations

DOUBLECLICK INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
E.PIPHANY INC.: Sued For Securities Law Violations in S.D. New York
ELBIT LTD.: Tel-Aviv Court Approves Settlement Agreement In Civil Suit
ENRON CORPORATION: Sued By Employees For Locking Down Retirement Plan
ENRON CORPORATION: Campbell Harrison, Keller Rohrback File ERISA Suit

FLORIDA: Judge Orders State To Refund Disabled For $15 Permit Fee
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Sued For Artificially Inflating Medicine Prices
IC ISAACS: Maryland Federal Court Approve Securities Suit Settlement
INTERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
LANTE CORPORATION: Denies Securities Violations Allegations

MECCA FARMS: Farm Workers Sue For Wage, Labor Violations in Florida
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Reaches $1.1B Settlement In Private Suits
MUSICCITY.COM: Sued By Songwriters For Music File Swapping Software
NETRATINGS INC.: Sued By Shareholders For Securities Violations in NY
NETRO CORPORATION: Labels New York Securities Suits "Without Merit"

OLSEN HEALTH: Sued For Antitrust, RICO Violations in M.D. Tennessee
ORCHID BIOSCIENCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
PIONEER LIFE: Sued By Elderly Couple For Selling Unnecessary Insurance
PITTSBURGH STEELERS: Fans Sue Over Seating Arrangements In Brochure
RED HAT: Offers Alternative Proposal To Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Wolf Haldenstein Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
SOUTH AFRICA: Activist Sues Government Over Billion Dollar Arms Deal
STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SWITCHBOARD INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TREX COMPANY: Shareholders File Derivative Suit in VA State Court

UNITED STATES: TRO Extended v Directive Against Oregon Suicide Law
WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY: Rezulin Suit Moved To Texas Federal Court


                           *********


AUCTION HOUSES: Former Sotheby's CEO Lied To Co-Workers, Media
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Sotheby's CEO, Diana Brooks, said she lied to coworkers and
media in the ongoing antitrust class action trial against two of the
world's top auction houses, the Associated Press reported.

The suit accused former Sotheby's Chairman, A. Alfred Taubman, of
conspiring with Christie's Sir Alfred Tennant to set non-negotiable
fees charged to sellers to prop up profits in a weak art market.

Earlier, Brooks testified that Taubman had instructed her to meet with
then Christie's CEO Christopher Davidge to set up an international
price-fixing scheme which charged sellers in the United States at least
$400 million in commissions from 1993 to 1999.

Brooks, who resigned from Sotheby's in February 2000, has pleaded
guilty to her role in the scheme and is helping the government in its
probe.

Taubman's lawyers have maintained Taubman's innocence and said Brooks
testified to avoid a three year prison term.

They accused her of lying to the public and her colleagues, citing
examples of newspaper interviews and staff meetings - which Brooks
claimed to have no recall of.

Taubman's lawyers presented in Court an 1997 clip from the TV program
"Wall Street Week With Louis Rukeyser", where Brooks said, "Our
integrity is all we have.we feel very strongly about that."

Taubman's lawyer, Robert Fiske asked her if she got up in front of the
London staff and stressed the code of conduct in the middle of fixing
the scheme, to which Brooks responded "I don't remember."

He also said Brooks feigned surprise at a 1995 management meeting after
Christie's announced a non-negotiable chart of seller fees, when Brooks
already knew of Christie's plans from secret meetings with her
counterpart there, Christopher Davidge.

According to an Associated Press report, Fiske asked "Isn't it true you
put on a big act and feigned total surprise?. And that you later said
to lawyers `You go talk to those people at the management committee
meeting. They'll tell you how surprised and shocked I was when that
Christie's announcement came in?'"

Brooks said she didn't recall the incident.

However, she later admitted in questioning by government attorney
Philip Cody, that she made false statements about price-fixing to the
media and others.

Asked why she lied, she said "I was involved with a conspiracy with Mr.
Taubman, Christopher Davidge and Sir Tennant. As a result, I didn't
tell anyone."

Brooks also acknowledged she did not have any notes from her meetings
with Taubman or Davidge.

Taubman, Sotheby's Holdings Inc.'s controlling shareholder and a
powerful figure in the art world, was indicted in May with former
Christie's chairman Sir Anthony Tennant.

Sotheby's agreed to pay a $45 million fine after pleading guilty to an
antitrust charge.  Christie's has not been charged criminally, but both
firms agreed to pay a total of $512 million.


AVANTGO INC.: Securities Suit Could Harm Business, Financial Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Avantgo, Inc. revealed that the securities class action pending against
them in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
could materially harm its business and financial condition and result
in a decline in the Company's stock price.

The suit was commenced last month against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public
offering.  

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Avantgo's common
stock during the period from September 27, 2000 to December 6, 2000.

The suit primarily alleges that the underwriters 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.  

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for Avantgo's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws  
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  

The Company vowed to vigorously oppose the securities suits in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Welfare Fund Alleges Fraudulent Drug Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------------
A large Teamsters welfare fund has filed a nationwide class action
against pharmaceutical firm Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE:BMY) on behalf
of all persons and entities who relied upon the nationally published
"Average Wholesale Price" (AWP) in paying for certain cancer drugs.

The Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity
alleged that the Company fraudulently priced its oncology drugs:

     (1) Taxol (generic name: paclitaxel),

     (2) Paraplatin (generic name: carboplatin),

     (3) Blenoxane (generic name: bleomyein sulfate),

     (4) Vepesid (generic name: etoposide),

     (5) Etopophos (generic name: etoposide phosphate), and

     (6) Ifex (generic name: ifosamide)

The suit alleges that the Company fraudulently inflated the AWP as
reported in industry publications, knowing that patients, insurers and
employee benefit funds would rely upon it as a basis for determining
how much to pay for the cancer drugs.

The suit alleges that the AWP quoted by the Company for its drugs bears
no relationship to the actual wholesale price it charges to doctors and
other purchasers, but is substantially higher than that actual price.

The disparity between what the doctor actually pays to obtain the drug
from the Company, and the AWP upon which the Teamsters Fund and other
payors rely to determine its reimbursement, is known informally as "the
spread."

The Company allegedly markets its products to doctors by emphasizing
the amount of the spread that can be recovered by the physician.

The Company's scheme is allegedly illustrated by its price
representations about the drug Blenoxane. Between 1995 and 1998, it
increased Blenoxane's AWP from $276.29 to $304.60, yet simultaneously
decreased the drug's actual cost from $224.22 to $155.

Jeffrey Kodroff, lawyer for the plaintiffs, noted that one of the other
drugs involved in the case, Taxol, was developed using $21 million in
federal government money from the National Institutes of Health.

Taxol is a widely prescribed treatment for breast cancer, the most
common cancer affecting women and one of the leading causes of death
among women. During the 1990s, more than one million women in the
United States were newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

"Our participants are getting squeezed by these inflated prices," said
William Einhorn, administrator for the Teamsters Fund. "Everyone knows
that medical costs are high enough without an unfair and artificial
pricing mechanism. Someone has to do something about it."

For more information, contact Jeffrey L. Kodroff by Phone: (215) 496-
0300 or by E-mail: jkodroff@srk-law.com


CANADA: High Court To Decide If Welfare Program Violated Human Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In a landmark case that pits five provincial governments of Canada
against the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit, judges are being
asked to decide whether welfare benefits are a constitutionally
protected right, according to the Christian Science Monitor's recent
report.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by Louise Gosselin, claims that
Quebec's 1985 Social Aid Regulation, providing that welfare recipients
between ages 18 and 30 had to enlist in job training or educational
programs in order to maintain their level of monthly aid, is
unconstitutional.

When Ms. Gosselin failed to enlist in job training or an educational
program, her monthly welfare check was cut from $282 to $102 per month.
She was one of thousands of Quebecers who had their welfare benefits
cut because they did not comply with the law.   

The lawsuit argues that the provincial government discriminated against
Gosselin and all the individuals in the class on the basis of age,
thereby violating their civil rights.

If Gosselin wins her class-action lawsuit, which has made it all the
way to the Supreme Court, Quebec could pay $250 million in back
compensation for claimants.  

Canada's 10 provincial governments would also be forced to set their
welfare rates according to judicial mandate rather than fiscal policy.

The suit lacks legal precedent, but the lawsuit's attorney, Carmen
Palardy and antipoverty interveners rely on documents including:

     (1) Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the equivalent of the
         US Bill of Rights), which guarantees life and "security of the
         Person;"

     (2) Quebec's rights charter, which promises "every person in need"
         the right to "an acceptable standard of living;" and

     (3) the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural
         Rights, which is part of the United Nations' Universal
         Declaration of Human Rights, signed by Canada and most other
         countries, and which also guarantees the right of everyone to
         an adequate standard of living.

The question before the court, Palardy explains, is whether governments
have an obligation to ensure everybody receives a minimum income when
they are unable to work because of unemployment or sickness.

Gosselin simply "tried to get the Quebec government to make good on its
own promises," says David Matas, a lawyer for the International Center
for Human Rights and Democracy, based in Winnipeg, which joined the
case on behalf of Gosselin.

According to Matas, courts in the past have upheld cases based on civil
and political rights, but not economic, social or cultural rights.  His
group says it is the province of the Supreme Court to enforce all the
rights.

Matas explained that the amount of money the Quebec government was
paying people under 30 who did not enroll in the programs, was
"conceded to be one-third the subsistence level in Quebec. we argued
that it should be at least at the level one can survive.You can't use
starvation as an incentive to workfare."

Andre Fauteux, a lawyer for the Quebec government, says, on the other
hand, that the government did not discriminate against any group, and
that the Charter rights of Gosselin and others were not violated.  

He said "In our view, no one was obliged to starve.  If they were in
need for food and lodging and so on, all they had to do was go to the
(welfare) office and get into the program.  No one was refused."

Fauteux did not explain why so many people chose not to enroll in the
job training and educational programs.  Almost all states that provide
welfare assistance, he said, have regulations that pay different rates
to different classes of people so there was no discrimination.

Fauteux also said that the international conventions have no legal
force in Canada and should be seen only as statements of good
intentions.  

To rule in favor of Gosselin, he added, would open the floodgates to
frivolous law suits by welfare recipients who claim their monthly
checks are not enough for an adequate living standard.

Lawyers for the governments of British Columbia and Alberta argue that
Gosselin's Charter rights were not violated, because the government did
not cause Gosselin's poverty.  

They warned that upholding her claim would derail government efforts to
reduce poverty through mandatory education and training programs.


CHARTER SCHOOLS: Pennsylvania School Districts Challenge Cyber Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen school districts filed a class action suit challenging the
legality of a charter school law and the operation of the Einstein
Academy Cyber School in Jenkintown, Bucks County.

The districts filed the suit to "prevent the school from enrolling
additional students and dipping into the district's share of state
education subsidies to pay tuition for students enrolled in the
school," solicitor Steve Russell told the York Dispatch.

The York County school districts included in the lawsuit are:

     (1) Southern School District,

     (2) Dover District,

     (3) York Suburban District,

     (4) Eastern District,

     (5) South Eastern District,

     (6) Spring Grove District,

     (7) Adams District,

     (8) Beaver District,

     (9) Butler District,

    (10) Centre District,

    (11) Chester District,

    (12) Delaware District,

    (13) Lancaster District and

    (14) Montgomery District

Board members assert that the state legislature, which provides for
establishment of charter schools that operated independently from
existing school districts, did not intend to include cyber schools.

The board members further contended that cyber schools like Einstein
Academy are a financial burden on local school districts, and are
racking up profits despite questions regarding their performance.

Russell also emphasized "The accountability factor is a big point, and
with Einstein there is none.If Einstein provides a lousy program,
what's to prevent a student from suing you?"

However, Board member Erek Gass had a dissenting opinion and voted
against the suit, saying legislators knew cyber schools were a
possibility.  He added he supports the concept because cyber schools
offer courses not available in public schools.

He told the York Dispatch "If we vote for this, we are denying some of
our constituents the education they want.This is uncalled for and I
will not support the board in this action. I oppose the use of taxpayer
dollars for this lawsuit."

Last month, parents of students of The Einstein Academy filed one of
the largest class action lawsuits of its kind against over 300
Pennsylvania School Boards.

The parents started the action after the school boards refused to remit
state-legislated funding to the school, the largest online K-12 school,  
causing severe disruptions at the school.


CHOICE ONE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Choice One Communications,
Inc. (NASDAQ:CWON) between February 16, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

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

In February 2000, Choice One commenced an initial public offering of
7,145,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $20
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 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


COMMERCE ONE: Sued For Securities Law Violations In S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce One, Inc. vowed to vigorously defend against several
securities suits pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The first of these suits was commenced in June 2001 against the
Company, several company officers and directors and three underwriters
in the Company's initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of Commerce One stock from July
1,1999 to June 15,2001, alleges violations of:

     (1) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all
         defendants;

     (2) Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual
         defendants;

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

In July 2001, a similar complaint was filed against the defendants in
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint is substantially identical to the first suit, except in
that it alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder) against all defendants, and the
class period ends December 6, 2001.

The suits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes with these other
related lawsuits and have been assigned the collective caption In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation.

As of November 8, 2001, no schedule has been established regarding the
lawsuits against Commerce One.

The Company anticipates that all lawsuits against it will eventually be
formally coordinated or consolidated with one another, and believes it
has meritorious defenses to these securities lawsuits.


DELTA AIRLINES: Benefits Suit Transferred To Georgia Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation approved the transfer of
the pilot retirement benefits class action against Delta Airlines to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Several suits were commenced in June in federal courts in California,
Massachusetts, Ohio, New Mexico and New York against the Company and
the Company-funded Delta Pilots Retirement Plan.

These suits, filed on behalf of a class consisting of certain groups of
retired and active Delta Airlines pilots, allege that the calculation
of the retirement benefits of the class violated the Retirement Plan
and the Internal Revenue Code.

The Company denied the allegations and stated its intent to defend
these matters vigorously in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


DELTA AIRLINES: Passengers File Suit Due To Fraudulent Travel Vouchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Airlines faces a consumer class action pending in the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri on behalf of all persons who
relinquished their seats on an overbooked Delta flight in exchange for
a travel voucher that may be redeemed for a round-trip, economy class
Delta ticket.

The complaint asserts claims for:

     (1) fraud,

     (2) breach of contract and

     (3) unjust enrichment

The suit alleges that the airline failed to disclose that it limits the
number of seats on each flight that may be obtained by redeeming travel
vouchers.

Last September 2001, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
action certification and denied Delta's motion for summary judgment.

The Company said it intends to defend this matter vigorously.


DIGITAL IMPACT: Sued In S.D. NY For Federal Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Impact, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging federal securities violations.

The first two suits were commenced in June 2001 on behalf of of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 22, 1999 and
December 6, 2000 and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) William Park,

     (2) David Oppenheimer, and

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation

The suit alleges:

     (i) violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
         all defendants;

    (ii) a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act against
         William Park and David Oppenheimer; and

   (iii) 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 Credit Suisse.

On June 29, 2001, another complaint was filed containing virtually
similar allegations on behalf of purchasers of Digital Impact stock
during the same class period.

The suit, however, named additional defendants:

     (a) Gerardo Capiel, a Company officer and director,

     (b) J.P. Morgan Chase,

     (c) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and

     (d) Bear Stearns

The Company expects that other similar class actions will be filed.

Digital Impact is confident that the litigation will not have a
material effect on the Company's financial position or business
operations.


DOUBLECLICK INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of DoubleClick, Inc. (NASDAQ:DCLK)
between December 11, 1998 and December 6, 2000, inclusive and between
February 18, 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, with regard to the secondary Class Period,
certain defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

With regard to the period from February 18,2000 to December 6,2000, the
defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and certain defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In December 1998, DoubleClick commenced a secondary public offering of
2.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$34.4375 per share.

In February 2000, the Company commenced a tertiary public offering of
7.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$90.25 per share.

In connection therewith, DoubleClick filed registration statements,
which incorporated prospectuses regarding the offerings with the SEC.
The complaint further alleges that the prospectuses were materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose 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 Company shares issued in
         connection with the offerings; and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby the underwriters 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 details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll-free) by Fax: 212-490-
2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


E.PIPHANY INC.: Sued For Securities Law Violations in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
E.Piphany, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between September 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000, against the
Company, several of its officers and three underwriters in the
Company's initial public offering.

The complaint alleges violations of:

     (1) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all
         defendants;

     (2) Section 15 of the Securities Act against the individual
         defendants; and

     (3) Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the underwriters.

The lawsuits against the Company have been coordinated for pretrial
purposes with these other related lawsuits, and have been assigned the
collective caption In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin is presiding over the coordinated pretrial
proceedings. As of November 8, 2001, no schedule has been established
regarding the lawsuits against the Company.

The Company anticipates that all lawsuits against it specifically will
eventually be formally coordinated or consolidated with one another.

The Company also stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it believes it has meritorious defenses to these suits.


ELBIT LTD.: Tel-Aviv Court Approves Settlement Agreement In Civil Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Ltd. (NASDAQ:ELBTF) announced that the Tel-Aviv district court
approved a settlement agreement in the civil suit against the Company,
and:

     (1) Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. (EMI),

     (2) Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. and

     (3) Mr. Emmanuel Gill

The settlement agreement provides for the dismissal of the claim
against the Company and all other defendants except EMI.

The claim was recognized as a class action on behalf of those persons
who sold warrants (series 2) or shares of the Company or shares of EMI
during the periods and in the circumstances set forth in the settlement
agreement.

The essence of the settlement agreement is the payment of damages to
the class represented in the claim, for damage or losses allegedly
caused to the members of the class as a result of:

     (i) the failure to announce or;

    (ii) the failure to issue an immediate notice to the securities
         authorities

concerning negotiations for the sale to third parties of the business
of Elscint Ltd., a subsidiary of EMI.

In the event that the number of class members objecting to the
settlement agreement exceeds the number specified therein, EMI and its
insurers have the right to cancel the settlement agreement in
accordance with its terms.

Without it constituting an admission, EMI has undertaken in the
settlement agreement to pay to the class represented in the claim the
total sum of up to $1,800,000 (including legal fees and compensation to
the plaintiffs) in accordance with the terms thereof.

In parallel to the signature of the settlement agreement, EMI's
insurers undertook to pay the damages referenced above, pursuant to the
terms of EMI's insurance policy.

For more information, contact Tal Raz, Vice President and CFO Conrad
Mir Elbit Ltd. by Phone: (972)-9-9704-111 or (1-212)-983-1702 by Fax:
(972)-9-9704-200 or (1-212)-983-1736 by E-mail: raz@elbitcom.co.il


ENRON CORPORATION: Sued By Employees For Locking Down Retirement Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman LLP filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Enron
Corporation (NYSE:ENE) employees, claiming the company recklessly
endangered their retirement funds, causing some employees to lose
hundreds of thousands of dollars almost overnight.

The suit also claims that after a surprising third quarter loss
announcement, the Company illegally locked down employee retirement
plans, making it impossible for employees to protect their already
damaged retirement funds from a 70% drop in Enron's stock price.

The suit, filed on behalf of as many as 21,000 employees who invested
in the Enron Stock Plan between Jan. 20, 1998 and Nov. 20, 2001, claims
the Company's retirement plan managers withheld crucial information on
the risks of investing in the Company's stock.

Instead of being warned of the risks, employees were encouraged to
invest heavily in Enron stock, according to the suit.

Named plaintiff Roy Rinard, a long-time employee, had more than
$470,000 of his retirement savings invested in the Company's stock on
the advice of plan administrators.

Now his retirement fund is worth just $70,000 -- a loss of $400,000 in
a little more than a month.

"I feel like I have been betrayed," said Rinard. "I have lost my
savings, my plans for the future, everything."

Last month, the Company locked down employee 401(k) accounts,
preventing employees from moving any of their investments out of Enron
stock.

Since then, employees have watched in horror as the company's stock
plunged more than 70 percent after an announcement of a $618 million
third quarter loss.

According to the suit, Enron executives engaged in extensive insider
trading prior to the Oct. 16 announcement, gaining millions of dollars
in personal proceeds.

Last October 16, 2001, the Company surprised the market when it
announced that the company was taking non-recurring charges totaling
$1.01 billion after-tax in the third quarter of 2001.

Enron later revealed that a portion of the charge was related to the
unwinding of investments with certain limited partnerships controlled
by its CFO, and the company would be eliminating more than $1 billion
in shareholder equity as a result of the unwinding of investments.

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Campbell Harrison, Keller Rohrback File ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Harrison & Wright LLP and Keller Rohrback LLP have filed an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) breach of fiduciary
duty lawsuit on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of Enron
Corporation's (NYSE:ENE) savings 401(k) plan, with a class period
covering November 1, 2000, through the present.

The lawsuit alleges that, under the law interpreting ERISA, the Company
and the individual trustees of the plan breached their fiduciary duties
of loyalty and prudence in a variety of ways:

     (1) the failure to adequately disclose to the plan participants
         and beneficiaries the risks of employer stock as a plan
         investment;

     (2) the failure to adequately monitor employer stock as a plan
         investment; and

     (3) the failure to address their own conflicts of interest as
         company insiders on the one hand and trustees of the plan on
         the other.

Rather than providing complete and accurate information to the plans'
participants, it is alleged that Enron and the individual trustees:

     (i) withheld and concealed material information about the use of
         employer stock as a long-term savings vehicle;

    (ii) did not adequately monitor the employer stock for its
         suitability as an investment in a retirement plan; and

   (iii) did nothing to address their own conflicts of interest.

Last month, the Company surprised the market when it announced that it
was taking "non-recurring charges totaling $1.01 billion after-tax, or
($1.11) loss per diluted share," in the third quarter of 2001.

Enron later revealed that a material portion of the charge related to
the unwinding of investments with certain limited partnerships,
controlled by its CFO, and that it would be eliminating more than $1
billion in shareholder equity as a result of its unwinding of the
investments.

As this news began to be assimilated by the market, the price of the
Company's common stock dropped significantly. In addition, several
recently filed securities suits allege that Company executives engaged
in extensive insider trading, gaining millions of dollars in personal
proceeds.

Enron's plan participants have lost a substantial portion of their
retirement earnings due to the drop in value of their retirement
assets.

For more details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Britt Tinglum, or Lynn
Sarko) by Phone: 800/776-6044, by E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
or contact Robin Harrison by Phone: 713/752-2332.


FLORIDA: Judge Orders State To Refund Disabled For $15 Permit Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a Miami Circuit judge, the State of Florida has violated
the Americans with Disabilites Act by charging disabled people $15 each
for their handicapped parking permits since January 26, 1992.

According to a Miami Herald report, Judge Amy Steele Donner ordered the
State to refund tens of millions of dollars in fees collected from them
during the past decade.

Florida's disabled population have to obtain a permit placard that
allows them to park in specially marked parking spaces for easier
access to retail stores, restaurants.

The permit could be obtained by showing an approved doctors' slip and
paying $15 for four years, which Judge Donner said violated "the ADA's
prohibition against a public entity charging fees for access."

Lead plaintiff JoAnn Norris said she was glad the court decided in
their favor, saying the policy was not "fair to handicapped people."

Her attorney Michael Lanham agreed saying that it was "great victory"
for the disabled and asserted that little of the profits from the fee
is spent on making public roads and parking more accessible to the
disabled.

He told the Miami Herald "When we were able to trace the dollars into
the Department of Motor Vehicles, they went right into roadway
construction (at the Department of Transportation)."

He further said, "It's a surcharge on the backs of people with
disability to subsidize transportation in this state. It's unfair, it's
not right."

According to transportation department spokesman Richard Kane, the fee
goes to improving rest stops, restrooms, call boxes, crosswalks and
roadways for disabled people who drive cars.

Between 800,000 and one million people who obtained the permit since
1992 would be eligible for refund, although details on how class
members could obtain it have not been worked out.

The state could ask Donner for another hearing or appeal her order, but
no decision has been made, said Joe Bizzaro, a spokesman for Attorney
General Bob Butterworth.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Sued For Artificially Inflating Medicine Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two groups filed a purported class action against pharmaceutical giant
GlaxoSmithKline PLC, claiming that the Company artificially inflated
the price of Medicare-covered drugs at the expense of consumers.

The Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia and the
United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health
Benefits Fund filed the suit, which has 30,000 participants.

The suit claims that the Company fraudulently boosted the price of the
"national average wholesale price" for pharmaceuticals - the amount the
government uses as basis for reimbursement of drugs covered by Medicare
part B, according to a Philadelphia Inquirer report.

The suit cited a report by the US Office of the Inspector General last
year that said Medicare paid $887 more for reimbursements for 24
leading drugs than wholesale prices charged to physicians and
suppliers.

The lawsuit asserts that, based on standard copayments and deductibles,
consumers and third-party payers would have paid $175 million less if
the reimbursements were based on actual wholesale prices.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Medicare does not cover most
prescription drugs, but Part B does reimburse a doctor or medical
provider 80% of the cost of:

     (1) certain prescription drugs that cannot be self-administered
         (mostly chemotherapy for cancer),

     (2) drugs administered using some type of covered "durable medical
         equipment,"

     (3) selected immunizations and self-administered drugs such as
         blood-clotting factors,

     (4) some oral cancer drugs, and

     (5) immunosuppressive medications

The suit contends that Medicare paid prices "substantially higher than
prices (GlaxoSmithKline) charges private-sector purchasers" because
instead of using actual wholesale costs, Medicare uses pharmaceutical
industry publications.

These publications, such as the Blue Book, Red Book and Medispan gets
which get pricing information directly from the drug firms.

The suit asserts claims under federal antitrust and racketeering laws
and seeks the creation of a trust fund from the company's purported
"ill-gotten gains" that would be distributed to class members.

Company spokeswoman Mary Anne Rhyne said the Company has not seen the
lawsuit and cannot comment on the issue, according to the Inquirer.

Lead counsel Marc H. Edelson also told the Inquirer that he believed
this was the first federal suit against the Company over the Medicare
drug issue and that other drug firms would likely also be sued.


IC ISAACS: Maryland Federal Court Approve Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland approved
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Sportswear maker IC Isaacs & Company, Inc.

The suit arose from several suits commenced in November 1999 against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The suits were filed on behalf of all persons (other than the
defendants and their affiliates) who purchased the Company's stock
between December 17, 1997 and November 11, 1998.

The suits alleged that the registration statement and prospectus used
in connection with the Company's initial public offering, completed in
December 1997, contained materially false and misleading statements,
which artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during the
class period.

Specifically, the complaints alleged violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. They were later
consolidated into one action.

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

The settlement is to be funded entirely by its insurance carrier, and
the settlement payment has no adverse effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations.

Robert J. Arnot, Company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
commented in a press release, "We are pleased to have this situation
behind us, as we can now focus all of our attention on the future of
I.C. Isaacs."


INTERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: 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 interWAVE
Communications International Ltd. (NASDAQ:IWAV) between January 28,
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, namely:

     (1) Bank of America Securities,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney Holdings and

     (3) SG Cowen Securities

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

In January 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
8.5 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 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 more 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 IWAV.


LANTE CORPORATION: Denies Securities Violations Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lante Corporation denied allegations of federal securities violations
in the class action suit pending against them in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was commenced in early August against the Company, certain of
its present and former officers and directors, and the following
underwriters of its February 2000 initial public offering:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (2) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling common stock pursuant to the February 10,
2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters
in the offering had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors.

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

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, the underwriters' brokerage customers 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 stock rocketed upward was
intended to drive Company share price up to artificially high levels.

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

The Company believes that it has various meritorious defenses to the
claim and will defend vigorously against the suit.


MECCA FARMS: Farm Workers Sue For Wage, Labor Violations in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida vegetable grower Mecca Farms faces a class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court in West Palm Beach by eight of
their workers, charging the Company of labor laws violations.

The suit accused the bell pepper and tomato grower and its contractor
of failing to pay the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage and named as
defendants:

     (1) Mecca Farms,
     
     (2) M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. of Lantana, their labor contractor,

     (3) Maria Sanchez, proprietor of M. Sanchez & Son

     (4) Rogerio Rodriguez, proprietor of M. Sanchez & Son

The suit could affect as many as 1,000 employees who worked for the
Company since August 1997, according to a Palm Beach Interactive
report.

Cathleen Caron, a staff attorney representing the workers, told the
Palm Beach Interactive that the laborers were paid 40 cents for each
bucket they pick. This amount, when calculated on an hourly basis that
must reach the minimum wage.

However she said that the Company underreported hours when the workers
were picking and did not pay for all the buckets they picked.

The suit also alleged that the defendants did not pay Social Security
taxes and provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act that relate to record keeping, wage statements, wage
payments, and transportation.

The Company said that it has not been contacted by the Migrant
Farmworker Justice Project about any violation and has not been served
with the suit.

Gary Smigiel, Mecca's general counsel, said "I can't respond to
something I haven't seen. Cathleen never advised Mecca Farms that in
her opinion there was a problem, or requested a meeting, until she did
her press release."

He said the Company did not hire any of the plaintiffs in the suit and
emphasized "Mecca Farms' policy to strictly adhere to the minimum wage
and all governmental regulations regarding employees."


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Reaches $1.1B Settlement In Private Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation has definitely reached settlement in a number of
private antitrust suits, under which the Company will provide around
$1.1 billion in cash, training, support and software to some 12,500
schools in low-income U.S. neighborhoods.

The suits, which were later incorporated into a class action, charges
the Company with abusing its market position by charging too much for
computers and software.

Under the agreement, the Company:

     (1) will provide computer technology resources to all K-through-
         12 public schools in the United States.  Around 70% of these
         schools' population comes from low-income families;

     (2) create a national foundation that would provide grants to
         local foundations and communications for purchasing computers
         and software.  The Company would grant $150 million to start
         the foundation and will donate an additional $100 million to
         match donations from other sources;

     (3) contribute $160 million to a separate fund, overseen by the
         foundation, to be used for technology support programs to
         assist participating schools;

     (4) train teachers, school administrators and support personnel in    
         using and integrating technology in the school curriculum,
         contributing around $90 million during the five-year  
         settlement period;

     (5) establish a program that provides non-profit computer
         refurbishing organizations with licenses and/or software for
         Microsoft operating systems to be installed on refurbished
         personal computers;

     (6) provide at least 200,000 Pentium-class PCs and Macintosh
         computers to eligible schools during the settlement period;

     (7) donate educational and productivity software, as well as
         licenses for its Windows XP operating, system - the estimated
         cost of which could exceed $500 million;

The agreement, which the two sides negotiated over the weekend and
signed on Monday, will be presented for approval before Baltimore
District Court Juge Frederick Motz.

A public hearing on the settlement has been set for November 27.

Motz's approval of the settlement will represent a "legal and public
relations" victory for the Company, where it could increase its
presence in schools, where rival Apple Computer has traditionally had a
leading presence.

According to a CNN report, CEO Steve Ballmer said in a media conference
call that the settlement was ".a very meaningful way for us to conclude
this litigation and to be able to really focus in on developing and
delivering the innovative products and services that will benefit not
only these students and these educators, but the population broadly and
around the world."

He said the settlement worked two ways - avoiding long and costly
litigation and making a ".difference in the lives of millions of school
children in some of the most economically disadvantaged schools in the
country."

According to Michael Hausfeld of law firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and
Toll and lead attorney in the case, they have reached the settlement
for what they believe are the "consumer portions of the civil
complaints."

The settlement agreement is unique, because in other cases, consumers
often receive coupons for discounted products or small paybacks, but
the plaintiffs' lawyers did not want that option in this case.

Hausfeld told CNN "We wanted to avoid a situation where consumers
received a coupon for a dollar or less or had to purchase another piece
of equipment.So we tried to aggregate the clients and come up with the
greatest social benefit."

Three weeks earlier, Microsoft had inked a settlement with the Justice
Department in the federal government's antitrust suit by agreeing to
restrict the Company's competitive behavior.

However, some of the states involved in the case have refused to accept
the settlement, saying the restrictions do not go far enough to curb
the Company's anticompetitive behavior.

Microsoft's deputy general counsel Tom Burt said the Company hopes the
class action settlement will persuade some of the attorney generals to
resolve the remaining issues in the federal case.

He told CNN "We hope that they'll look at this settlement and see that
perhaps this is an appropriate time with everything else that's facing
the country to get these issues behind us."

He emphasized that if Judge Motz chooses to include California, the
issue will be settled, saying "If the federal judge.concludes this a
fair and adequate settlement. then the claims that have been alleged in
all these cases around the country will be released, and all of those
lawsuits will ultimately be dismissed."

Experts have both praised and criticized the terms of the settlement.  

Gartner Dataquest analyst Michael Silver said it was a business and
public relations victory for the Company.

He said the settlement gets Microsoft out of the lawsuits in one fell
swoop, "It's a penalty, but it makes Microsoft look good and gives
schools PCs, and in so doing would give Microsoft an even larger
installed base than they already have."

University of Baltimore antitrust professor Bob Lande would like to see
Motz reject the settlement, calling it inadequate. "Microsoft wants to
settle literally for pennies on the dollar."

He says "There is almost no money for training. Those computers are
going to sit there and rot in the schools, and they're already obsolete
to begin with."

It is not yet clear how much the settlement will affect the Company's
bottom line.  Microsoft has said it will record a pre-tax charge of
roughly $550 million in the current fiscal quarter ending December 31.

The Company will provide additional detail on the financial impact of
the proposal later this week.


MUSICCITY.COM: Sued By Songwriters For Music File Swapping Software
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The writers of the song "Jailhouse Rock" filed a class action suit
against MusicCity.com and two other companies in the U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles for copyright infringement.

Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller filed the suit on behalf of more than
20,000 music publishers against the Company, Grokster Ltd. and Consumer
Empowerment BV.

Both accused the Companies for distributing software that lets users
trade music over the Internet without authorization, according to an
Associated Press report.

The suit accused the companies of "facilitating, materially
contributing to, and encouraging wholesale infringement of the world's
most popular songs."

MusicCity distributes Morpheus, a software program that taps into an
online network of hundreds of thousands of users trading music, movies
and software files.

Morpheus routes users directly into its online community unlike
Napster, whose users logged onto the company's central servers.

Consumer Empowerment BV, also known as FastTrack, developed the file-
sharing software licensed to MusicCity and similar technology
distributed by Grokster.

The same three companies were also sued on Oct. 2 by several record
labels and movie studios over software they called the ``next Napster''
for its ability to network users willing to trade files without
authorization.

The suit filed by music publishers Monday a permanent injunction
against and damages of $150,000 for each infringed work.
The three companies also face a lawsuit from several record labels and
movie studios who called the software "the next Napster" for its
ability to network users willing to trade files without authorization.

Edward Murphy, president for the National Music Publishers Association
told Associated Press that the lawsuit sought "to protect the rights of
music creators from flagrant piracy."

He added, "As the legitimate market for online music develops, however,
it is also about fundamental fairness to the music services that wish
to comply with the law by taking licenses."


NETRATINGS INC.: Sued By Shareholders For Securities Violations in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Netratings, Inc. vowed to vigorously oppose the securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of Company stock from December 9,1999 to
December 6,2000.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, was filed against the Company, two of its
officers and directors and certain underwriters of its initial public
offering (IPO).

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

The suit alleges that the Company's prospectus, incorporated in the
registration statement for the IPO, was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters required several investors who sought large
         allocations of stock in the offering to pay excessive
         underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage
         commissions on other trades; and

     (2) the underwriters required investors to agree to buy shares of
         Company stock after the offering was completed at
         predetermined prices as a precondition to obtaining
         allocations in the offering.

The suit further alleged that because of these purchases, the Company's
stock price after our initial public offering was artificially
inflated.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit.  However, due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot accurately predict
the ultimate outcome of the suit.


NETRO CORPORATION: Labels New York Securities Suits "Without Merit"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Netro Corporation vowed to vigorously oppose several securities class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit named as defendants, the Company, certain officers and
directors of the Company and the following underwriters:

     (1) Dain Rauscher, Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

     (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc.

The suit makes a number of allegations relating to the initial public
offering of Netro's common stock in August 1999, including that the
disclosures made in connection with that offering were incomplete or
misleading in various respects.

The suit alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the
underwriters:

     (i) charged the Company excessive commissions and inflated
         transaction fees in violation of the securities laws and
         regulations; and

    (ii) allowed certain investors to take part in the Company's
         initial public offering in exchange for promises that these
         investors would purchase additional shares in the aftermarket
         for the purpose of inflating and maintaining the market price
         of the Company's common stock.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between August 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Netro has labeled the suits without merit and believes they are part of
the rash of lawsuits filed against more than 140 different issuers of
initial public offerings occurring between December 1997 and December
2000.


OLSEN HEALTH: Sued For Antitrust, RICO Violations in M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Olsen Health Management (also known as Hospital Contract Management
Services) faces a class action suit filed by Ultimate Home Health Care,
Inc. in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Columbia/HCA,

     (2) Columbia Homecare Group, and

     (3) Olsten Corporation.

The suit alleges that the defendants' business practices in connection
with home health care patient referrals between 1994 and 1996 violated
provisions of:

     (i) federal antitrust laws,

    (ii) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),

   (iii) the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and

    (iv) state common law

The suit was filed on behalf of home healthcare companies and/or
agencies that conducted business in Tennessee, Texas, Florida and/or
Georgia.

In January 2001, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RICO and state
common law tort claims, but allowed plaintiff's other claims to
proceed.

After conducting some discovery on the issues, the plaintiff filed a
notice of withdrawal of certain allegations notifying the court of its
intent to withdraw all allegations related to class status and
antitrust claims in the amended Complaint.

Early this month, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
alleging violation of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and civil
conspiracy.

The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.


ORCHID 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 Orchid BioSciences, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ORCH) between May 4, 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 May 2000, Orchid commenced an initial public offering of 6,000,000
of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $8 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 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


PIONEER LIFE: Sued By Elderly Couple For Selling Unnecessary Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An American couple has filed a class action suit against Pioneer Life
Insurance Company in Collier County Circuit Court after the Company
sold them life insurance policies they didn't need.

Elderly couple Marion and William Boyles filed the suit.  William, an
80-year-old retired milkman from Long Island, has a failing hip implant
that requires constant medication, while Marion, 78, has heart and back
problems that confine her to a wheelchair.

Two years ago, company agents told the couple they would lose their
supplemental Medicare health coverage unless they agreed to pay
thousands of dollars more in premiums immediately.

Supplemental Medicare policies, also known as Medigap policies, cover
expenses not paid by Medicare. They are a key safety net for senior
citizens.

The couple complied, not knowing that in the process, they were buying
expensive life insurance policies they didn't need. In the following
months the agents visited again and again, eventually selling the
Boyles six unneeded whole-life policies.

The suit, filed on behalf of hundreds of other senior citizens
victimized by the scheme, alleges:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) negligent misrepresentation,

     (3) civil conspiracy, and

     (4) unjust enrichment

The Boyles' attorney John Yanchunis of James Hoyer Newcomer &
Smiljanich PA, said in a press release "The threat of losing medical
insurance was a gun held to the head of these senior citizens.This
company took advantage of their greatest fears for its own profit."

He further alleged the Company ".knew this exploitation was going on.It
received the applications for new health policies to replace old ones.
It received applications for whole-life policies that made no economic
sense for these senior citizens to buy. Yet the company did nothing to
correct the situation."

He estimated that in excess of 1,000 other senior citizens,
concentrated in southwest Florida, suffered the same fate as the
Boyles.


PITTSBURGH STEELERS: Fans Sue Over Seating Arrangements In Brochure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Longtime fans of the Pittsburg Steelers sued the football team Tuesday,
alleging that a brochure that the team printed three years ago did not
correspond to the location of their seats at the Heinz Field.

WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol reported that some fans were shocked when they
got to the newly constructed stadium and saw where their seats were
actually located.

Season ticket holder Lenny Szulczewski told Associated Press, "They put
me up in peanut heaven, and we have three handicapped people."

Ticket holder Joe Nicollela, a season ticket holder for 65 years, said
"I got the best jabbing I ever got in my life."

Van Osdol reported that fans thought they'd be sitting in the lower
part of the upper deck, based on the brochure, but when they got there,
they found out they were actually sitting halfway up, if not farther.

The Steelers have countered saying the brochure was not binding, but
the seat license contract was.  They asserted in that document, ticket
holders agreed to take the seats the Steelers gave them.

According to Van Osdol, the Steelers said those seats matched the
brochure as closely as possible. The team's attorney said, "When people
signed this contract, there was a recognition they would abide by its
terms."

Bill Helzlsouer, the attorney for the ticket holders, said the fans
believed the brochure and did not think about reading the fine print.

He said, "They don't necessarily expect they're going to wind up in
court with a barrage of lawyers saying, 'Wait a minute.You didn't read
the fine print.There was no fair dealing in this case."

The Steelers are asking the judge to dismiss the suit. They also said
re-juggling the seating configuration at Heinz Field to meet the
demands of the plaintiffs would be impossible, Van Osdol reported.


RED HAT: Offers Alternative Proposal To Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Software company Red Hat, Inc. (NASDAQ:RHAT) proposed yesterday an
alternative to the settlement agreement forged by Microsoft Corporation
in the private class action against them, according to a press release.

Microsoft Corporation had earlier agreed to settle the private
antitrust suits against them for a $1.1 billion program that would
provide cash, training, equipment and software to low-income schools.

Red Hat, Inc. offered to provide open-source software to every school
district in the United States free of charge, to encourage Microsoft to
redirect the money it would have spent on software into purchasing more
hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts.

By removing Microsoft's higher-priced software from the settlement
equation, the benefits it sought to provide school districts with their
proposed settlement would be greatly extended.

A company press release was issued, greatly extending the benefits
Microsoft seeks to provide school districts with their proposed
settlement.

The alternative proposal includes:

     (1) Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software
         donation to the purchase of additional hardware for the school
         districts. This would increase the number of computers
         available under the original proposal from 200,000 to more
         than one million, and would increase the number of systems per
         school from approximately 14 to at least 70;

     (2) Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source Red
         Hat Linux operating system, office applications and associated
         capabilities to any school system in the United States;

     (3) The Company will provide online support for the software
         through the it's network. Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which
         has a five-year time limit at which point schools would have
         to pay Microsoft to renew their licenses and upgrade the
         software, the Hat proposal has no time limit. The Company will
         provide software upgrades through its online network
         distribution channel.

The proposal achieves two important goals, according to the Red Hat
press statement:

     (i) improving the quality and accessibility of computing education
         in the nation's less-privileged schools; and

    (ii) preventing the extension of Microsoft's monopoly to the most-
         vulnerable users.

Matthew Szulik, Company CEO, said "While we applaud Microsoft for
raising the idea of helping poorer schools as part of the penalty phase
of their conviction for monopolistic practices, we do not think that
the remedy should be a mechanism by which Microsoft can further extend
its monopoly."

He further asserted that the proposal will be a "win-win" situation -
allowing all of the states and all of the schools to win, and Microsoft
to achieve even greater success for its stated goal of helping schools.

He said ".the schools can accept this offer secure in the knowledge
that they have not rewarded a monopolist by extending the monopoly.
It's now up to Microsoft to demonstrate that they are truly serious
about helping our schools."

For more information, access the Company's Website:
www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/.


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Wolf Haldenstein Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sirenza
Microdevices, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMDI), formerly known as Stanford
Microdevices, Inc., between May 24, 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 May 2000, Sirenza commenced an initial public offering of 4 million
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 that:

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

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

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas H. Burt, Gustavo
Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters, 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 Sirenza.


SOUTH AFRICA: Activist Sues Government Over Billion Dollar Arms Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A South African peace activist has launched a class action against
certain government officials, seeking to block a multi-billion dollar
deal with European arms manufacturers.

Terry Crawford-Browne filed papers in the Cape High Court, challenging
the deal, which involves the purchase of:

     (1) nine Gripen fighter jets from from Saab AB and BAE Systems
         PLC;

     (2) 12 trainer BAE Hawk jets;

     (3) 30 light helicopters from Augusta SpA; and

     (4) three submarines and four patrol vessels from Germany

Crawford-Browne filed the suit together with the Economists Allied for
Arms Reduction on behalf of the nation's poor, saying the deal was
riddled with corruption.

According to Crawford-Browne, the cost of the deal had risen by
billions of dollars since it was announced in 1999 because of the fall
in the rand.

He told AFX-Europe, "We are only in year two, and the cost of the deal
has already escalated to 66 Billion rand (US$6.7 Billion). Given the
depreciation of the rand over the past 40 years, we could be looking at
250 billion to 300 billion rand."

He said the deal will leave no money left for meeting socio-economic
needs and that the deal could result in "social anarchy, as is the case
in Zimbabwe."

Last week, three statutory bodies probed the allegations of corruption
in the deal and said they found no wrongdoing on the part of President
Thabo Mbeki or his cabinet. They also said that only but that some
officials acted improperly.

The suit names as defendants President Mbeki, Finance Minister Trevor
Manuel and the three agencies that probed the deal.


STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired StarMedia Network, Inc. (Nasdaq:
STRM) securities between April 11, 2000 and November 19, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and executive
officers Fernando J. Espuelas and Steven J. Heller.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants issued to the
investing public false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues, earnings
and net income.

Moreover, StarMedia failed to disclose material information necessary
to make its prior statements not misleading.

On November 19, 2001, the Company shocked the investing community by
announcing that it was restating its previously reported financial
results for fiscal year 2000 and the first two quarters of fiscal 2001.

This was due to accounting errors and improper accounting practices at
two of the Company's Mexican subsidiaries, AdNet S.A. de C.V. and
StarMedia Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

As a result of these improper accounting practices, StarMedia's
reported revenues and earnings were overstated by at least $10 million.
Additionally, the Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer
had resigned.

These disclosures contradicted much of the information provided by
defendants to the market during the class period concerning its
financial results. In response, Nasdaq halted trading in the Company's
shares.

For more information, contact 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: STRM@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com  


STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire initiated a securities class action on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of StarMedia Network Inc. NASDAQ: STRM)
between April 11, 2000 and November 19, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint will charge the Company, as well as its former chief
executive and chief financial officers, with violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The defendants allegedly issued materially false and misleading
financial statements throughout the class period.

The suit alleges that the revenues and earnings reported by StarMedia
since the first quarter of 2000 were inflated and materially false and
misleading, which caused the Company's securities to trade at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

Specifically, the complaint will allege that two Company subsidiaries -
AdNet S.A. de C.V. and StarMedia Mexico, S.A. de C.V. - engaged in
improper accounting practices that materially overstated the revenues
and earnings reported by the Company during the Class Period by at
least $10 million.

As StarMedia admitted in a press release issued on November 19, 2001:

     (1) based on the "preliminary" results of an internal
         investigation into its accounting practices, the Company
         expects to restate its financial statements for fiscal year
         2000 and the first two quarters of 2001;

     (2) the financial statements that the Company had originally
         issued for fiscal 2000 and the first two quarters of fiscal
         2001 "should not be relied on"; and

     (3) the Company's chief financial officer had "resigned."

NASDAQ immediately suspended trading in the stock pending further
information from the Company. The Company's stock, which had traded at
above $25 per share during the class period, last traded at $0.39 per
share before trading was halted.

For more information, contact Ira Press or Orie Braun by Mail: 830
Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-
2300 by Phone: (888) 529-4787 or visit the firm's Website:
www.kmslaw.com


STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of StarMedia Network
Inc. (NASDAQ:STRM) between April 11, 2000 and November 19, 2001,
inclusive.  

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, Fernando J.
Espuelas, CEO and Chairman, and Steven J. Heller, Chief Financial
Officer.

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

The defendants allegedly issued issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between April 11, 2000 and November
19, 2001 concerning StarMedia's financial performance.

The complaint alleges that the Company reported artificially inflated
financial results in press releases and filings made with the SEC by
improperly recognizing revenue in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that two of the Company's primary
subsidiaries, AdNet S.A. de C.V. and StarMedia Mexico, S.A. de C.V, had
engaged in improper accounting practices that had the effect of
materially overstating the Company's reported revenues and earnings by
at least $10 million.

Last November 19, 2001, StarMedia issued a press release announcing
that based on the "preliminary" results of an internal investigation
into its accounting practices, it expects to restate its financial
statements for fiscal year 2000 and the first two quarters of 2001 and
that those financial statements should not be relied upon.

The Company further reported that its Chief Financial Officer had
"resigned."

Immediately following the announcement of the restatement, the NASDAQ
Stock Market halted trading in StarMedia's stock, pending the receipt
of additional information from the Company.

Company stock last traded at $0.38 per share, which is 98.5% less than
the class period high of $25.50, reached on April 11, 2000.

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 by Email: starmedianetworkcase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of StarMedia Networks,
Inc. (NASDAQ:STRM) from April 11, 2000 through November 19, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit, pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York, charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that StarMedia reported
artificially inflated financial results in press releases and filings
made with the SEC by improperly recognizing revenue in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that two of the Company's primary
subsidiaries, AdNet S.A. de C.V. and StarMedia Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,
had engaged in improper accounting practices, which had the effect of
materially overstating the Company's reported revenues and earnings by
at least $10 million.

On November 19, 2001, StarMedia issued a press release announcing that
based on the "preliminary" results of an internal investigation into
its accounting practices.

The Company announced it expects to restate its financial statements
for fiscal year 2000 and the first two quarters of 2001 and that those
financial statements should not be relied upon. It further reported
that its Chief Financial Officer had "resigned."

Immediately following the announcement of the restatement, the Nasdaq
Stock Market halted trading in StarMedia stock, pending the receipt of
additional information from the Company.

Company stock last traded at $0.38 per share, which is 98.5% less than
the class period high of $25.50, reached on April 11, 2000.

For more information, 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


STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of StarMedia Networks Inc. (NASDAQ:STRM)
securities during the period between April 11, 2000 and November 19,
2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against StarMedia, CEO Fernando J.
Espuelas and CFO Steven J. Heller.

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

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
the market between April 11, 2000 and November 19, 2001 concerning the
Company's financial performance.

The complaint alleges that StarMedia reported artificially inflated
financial results in press releases and filing made with the SEC by
improperly recognizing revenue in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that two of the Company's primary
subsidiaries, AdNet S.A. de C.V. and StarMedia Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,
had engaged in improper accounting practices which had the effect of
materially overstating the Company's reported revenues and earnings by
at least $10 million.

Last November 19, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing
that based on the "preliminary" results of an internal investigation
into its accounting practices.

StarMedia announced that it expects to restate its financial statements
for the fiscal year 200 and the first two quarters of 2001 and that
those financial statements should not be relied upon.  The Company
further reported that its Chief Financial Office had "resigned."

Immediately following the announcement of the restatement, the Nasdaq
Stock Market halted trading in Company stock, pending the receipt of
additional information from the Company.

StarMedia stock last traded at $0.38 per share, which is 98.5% less
than the class period high of $25.50, reached on April 11, 2000.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against StarMedia Network, Inc. (Nasdaq:STRM) and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

The suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
the Company from April 11, 2000 through November 19, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the defendants with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that StarMedia reported
artificially inflated financial results in press releases and filings
made with the SEC by improperly recognizing revenue in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Specifically, the suit alleges that two of the Company's primary
subsidiaries, AdNet S.A. de C.V. and StarMedia Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,
had engaged in improper accounting practices which had the effect of
materially overstating the Company's reported revenues and earnings by
at least $10 million.

Last November 19, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing
that based on the "preliminary" results of an internal investigation
into its accounting practices.

StarMedia announced that it expected to restate its financial
statements for fiscal year 2000 and the first two quarters of 2001 and
that those financial statements should not be relied upon. The Company
further reported that its Chief Financial Officer had "resigned."

Immediately following the announcement of the restatement, the Nasdaq
Stock Market halted trading in Company stock, pending the receipt of
additional information from the Company.

StarMedia stock last traded at $0.38 per share, which is 98.5% less
than the class period high of $25.50, reached on April 11, 2000.

For more information, contact Bull & Lifshitz LLP by Phone: (212) 213-
6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or by E-mail:
www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html or at counsel@nyclasslaw.com.


SWITCHBOARD INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP commenced a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Switchboard,
Inc. (NASDAQ:SWBD), between March 2, 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.

Last March 2000, Switchboard commenced an initial public offering of
5.5 million 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 that:

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

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

For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gustavo
Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters, 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 Switchboard.


TREX COMPANY: Shareholders File Derivative Suit in VA State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. faces a shareholder derivative suit filed in the
Circuit Court for the City of Winchester, Virginia, alleging that
Company directors violated federal securities laws.

The suit was filed on behalf of the Company against:

     (1) Robert G. Matheny, the President and a director of the
         Company,

     (2) Roger A. Wittenberg, the Executive Vice President of Technical
         Operations and Materials Sourcing and a director of the
         Company, and

     (3) Anthony J. Cavanna, the Executive Vice President, Chief
         Financial Officer and a director of the Company

The suit alleges that during the period commencing November 2, 2000 and
June 18,2001, the individual defendants caused the Company to issue
materially misleading disclosures.

The defendants did this in order to inflate Trex's common stock price
and permit insider trading by two of the individual defendants, Mr.
Matheny and Mr. Wittenberg.

The suit further alleges that the individual defendants thereby exposed
the Company to potential damages.

In October 19, 2001, the suit was removed to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Virginia, where four related class
actions are pending.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit.


UNITED STATES: TRO Extended v Directive Against Oregon Suicide Law
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert E. Jones of Federal District Court in Portland, Oregon
extended a restraining order against Attorney General John Ashcroft's
directive to overturn a law permitting assisted suicide for at least
four months, The New York Times recently reported.

Four Oregon citizens, who desire to avail themselves of the legal right
to commit assisted suicide, had joined with Oregon's Attorney General
Harody Myers in a legal motion to impose a stay on the directive.

The directive would have authorized federal drug agents to take action
against any doctor prescribing lethal drugs to be used in the
commission of a suicide.  The restraining order nullifies the directive
until the matter is heard on its merits.

The state also filed a broader lawsuit arguing that Ashcroft exceeded
his authority under federal drug laws and was illegally seeking to
interfere with Oregon's authority to regulate medicine.

Oregon is the only state where people are allowed to kill themselves
with drugs prescribed by a doctor.  

Under the state's Death with Dignity Act, a terminally ill patient may
take the lethal drugs if two doctors agree that the person has less
than six months to live and is mentally competent to decide whether to
end his life.

Judge Jones also ruled that the case would move directly to a trial
based on the final merits, after the usual filing of motion for summary
judgment by the citizen plaintiffs, response by the state and reply by
the plaintiffs.  

After that, Judge Jones said he expects a swift hearing and a decision
within 30 days.

During the recent hearing on the restraining order, lawyers for the
State of Oregon said that Janet Reno, attorney general during the
Clinton Administration, had already considered the issue of federal
power versus state power in this matter and decided that the power
rested with the state.  

There was no precedent, the lawyers argued, for another attorney
general to overturn that interpretation. They also said that the
federal government did not give the required notice of its directive or
the opportunity for a public hearing.

Lawyers for terminally ill patients who had joined this suit said that
the patients would bear the greatest hardship if the restraining order
were lifted.

Gregory Katsas, a lawyer from the Justice Department's headquarters in
Washington, D.C., argued that the case was not about regulating
medicine generally but about regulating medicine under the federal
Controlled Substances Act.

In his directive, Ashcroft said that "prescribing, dispensing or
administering federally controlled substances to assist suicide"
violated the act, which was passed by Congress in 1970.

"We say that federal law controls the determination of what is
legitimate within the meaning of federal regulations; they say that
state law trumps federal law," Mr. Katsas said.  "No references are
made to state law in this statute."


WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY: Rezulin Suit Moved To Texas Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer class action against drug manufacturer Warner-Lambert
Company relating to diabetes drug Rezulin has been transferred to Texas
federal Court.

The suit was originally pending in Harris County, Texas state court and
was filed by the daughters of Norma Culberson, who suffered liver
failure and died as a result of taking Rezulin.

According to Rand Nolen, the plaintiff's attorney with Fleming &
Associates LLP, removal of cases to federal court is a common strategy
for Warner-Lambert.

"This is Warner Lambert's final assault on Norma Culberson and her
family, but the company won't be able to deny them their day in court
forever," he said in a press statement.

Fleming & Associates LLP will immediately file a motion to remand the
case back to state court.  Nolen said "We are hopeful that United
States District Judge David Hittner will agree this case was improperly
removed to his court and quickly remand the case back to state court
for trial."

He added in the same statement "Warner- Lambert's actions in removing
this case after voir dire are nothing short of cowardly and show just
how afraid the company is that its conduct pertaining to Rezulin will
be judged by the citizens of Harris County, Texas."

For more information, contact Rand Nolen by Phone: 1-713-621-7944.


                             *********


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  * * *