CAR_Public/011128.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
             Wednesday, November 28, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 232

                            Headlines


CARESCIENCE INC.: Berger Montague Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA
DOLE FOOD: Sued By Ex-Employees For WARN Violations in February Lay-off
ENRON CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
ENRON CORPORATION: Dalton Gotto Initiates Suit For ERISA Violations
ENRON CORPORATION: Gottesdiener Firm Files Suit For ERISA Violations

GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit
IASIAWORKS INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. New York
INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in NY
INTERNET SECURITY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
NEXTCARD INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in N.D. California

PROTECTION ONE: Sued By Former Dealers For Breach of Contract in KY
SHOPKO STORES: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SIRIUS SATELLITE: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in Vermont
SMARTDISK CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in NY

TENFOLD CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in Utah
TERRORIST ATTACK: Compensation Fund For Victims To Begin December 21
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TOBACCO COMPANIES: Appeal "Excessive" $145B Award For Florida Smokers
TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Against American Income

TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Seeks En Banc Decision On Alabama's 'Repose' Law
WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY


                            *********


CARESCIENCE INC.: Berger Montague Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC filed a securities class action against
CareScience, Inc. (Nasdaq:CARE) and its principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Company's securities during the period from June 28, 2000 through and
including November 1, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its principal officers and
directors violated Sections 11,12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and misled investors by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
material facts that the prospectus:

     (1) represented that the Company intended to use $20 million of
         the proceeds of its June, 2000 public offering for product
         development, and an additional $13 million to expand the
         Company's sales and marketing efforts;

     (2) stated that the Company's operating expenses were expected to
         continue to increase "as we expand our product development and
         sales and marketing efforts;" and that "as we execute our
         strategy we expect significant increases in our operating
         expenses to fund development of current and new product
         lines;" and

     (3) touted the Company's Careleader.com and CareScience.com
         products, stating that the sales of those products were
         expected to commence in 2001.

In fact, as disclosed at the end of the class period,

     (i) the Company was planning only extremely minimal increases in
         selling, general and administrative expenses, a rate of
         increase which would not equal the represented $13 million to
         be used for the purpose for more than a decade. Indeed the
         increase in such expenditures was completed with the addition
         of a mere eight sales and marketing employees;

    (ii) the Company planned only modest increases in research and
         development, at a rate which similarly would not equal the
         represented amount to be used for that purpose for more than a
         decade; and

   (iii) the Company had yet to determine the marketability of its
         CareScience and CareLeader products, and, as a result, had no
         reasonable basis for the representation that sales of those
         products would begin in 2001.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick,
Karen Orman or Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888.891.2289 or 215.875.3000 by Fax:
215.875.5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


DOLE FOOD: Sued By Ex-Employees For WARN Violations in February Lay-off
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Company faces a class action filed by hundreds of its farm
workers that it laid off earlier this year, alleging the Company
violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.
The suit alleges that the Company failed to notify the farm workers of
their lay-off, and owes the workers up to $4.8 million in severance
pay. The WARN act requires companies to give their employees 60 days
notice before implementing any mass lay-offs. The Company laid off
1,900 workers in February, saying the financial returns on its 5,000
acres of southern San Joaquin County vineyards and fresh fruit orchards
"were not acceptable," another official said, according to a report in
the Modesto Bee.

The suit was filed in Fresno, California on behalf of 10 former
employees who worked at three Dole ranches and a packing house that was
shut down in February 2000, and would affect around 300 to 800 others.
The workers allegedly had a "reasonable expectation" of employment in
the 60-day periods after the layoffs. However, "hundreds" of former
Dole employees have not been able to find work since the layoffs.

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation attorney Cynthia Rice says
that "Certainly nowhere close to a majority" found jobs, "A handful
here and there, but it appears that the more experienced workers that
we've interviewed did not get jobs with the farm labor contractor
crews."  Paul Strauss, attorney for the plaintiffs, also told the
Modesto Bee, "We certainly think it's important that companies
understand and follow their obligations to give employees advance
notice of mass layoffs and terminations."  He added, "Employees need
severance pay as required by federal law or advance notice so they can
find other employment.It's particularly important in seasonal
agricultural work, where if you don't get work at the beginning of the
season, you're not going to get work at all."

A Company official had said in July that the Company did give the
workers advance notice of the lay-offs and that the employees seasonal
status did not guarantee them a likelihood of work that would have been
covered by the WARN Act.  Company spokeswoman Freya Maneki declined to
comment, saying the company had not been served with the lawsuit as of
Thursday and that it is the firm's policy not to comment on pending
litigation.  The suit could cost the Company $1.125M to $4.8M in
payouts, if the plaintiffs prevail in the suit.  


ENRON CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Enron Corporation (NYSE: ENE) and certain of the Company's
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased securities of Enron Corporation (NYSE: ENE) between January
20, 1998 and November 8, 2001, inclusive.  The complaint charges the
Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the
defendants engaged in asset and securities sales to closely related
affiliates and interested parties, which disguised the Company's true
financial position.

Many of the details of these transactions were hidden from the public.
Defendants used these asset sales to falsely improve the Company's
balance sheet, thereby maintaining shares at an artificially inflated
price. Certain Company executives, who held positions in the affiliates
that presented clear conflicts of interest, reaped millions of dollars
in personal gains from these transactions. The complaint further
alleges that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the
potential value of Company's Broadband business, in order to
artificially boost share price.

With knowledge that the Company's Broadband business would never post a
profit and was seriously overvalued, defendants continued to make
misleading statements about the Broadband business in order to maintain
the share price at its artificially inflated levels.  Defendants used
the artificially inflated value of the Company's Broadband business in
order to gain millions of dollars in financing. The defendants failed
to disclose the risk of these financing arrangements and hid the true
nature of the Company's earnings, its hedging, its businesses, and the
correct state of finances from its investors and the market, further
artificially inflating Company share price. While the stock was
artificially inflated for the above reasons, Company executives engaged
in extensive insider trading, gaining personal proceeds of more than
$482 million during the class period, before the public became aware of
the above practices.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox or Laurence D. King by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 or 100 Pine
Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 by Phone: 800.290.1952 or
415.336.1238 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.kmslaw.com


ENRON CORPORATION: Dalton Gotto Initiates Suit For ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dalton Gotto Samson & Kilgard commenced a class action
lawsuit against Enron Corporation alleging breach of ERISA fiduciary
duties, on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Company's  
401(k) plan, from November 1, 2000, to the present.  The suit 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, including:

     (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 the Company 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.

On 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, or ($1.11) loss per diluted share," in the third
quarter of 2001. The Company later revealed that a material portion of
the charge related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited
partnerships, were controlled by Enron's CFO, and that the Company
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. The
Company's plan participants have lost a substantial portion of their
retirement earnings due to the drop in value of their retirement
assets.

For more information, contact R. Douglas Dalton or Ron Kilgard by
Phone: 602.248.0088 or by E-mail: dalton@DGSK.com or Britt Tinglum by
Phone: 800.776.6044 or by E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com.


ENRON CORPORATION: Gottesdiener Firm Files Suit For ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gottesdiener Law Firm filed a class action against troubled
Houston-based energy producer and trader Enron Corporation, on behalf
of several current and former employees seeking to recover for
themselves and their co-workers the approximately $850 million they
have lost in 401(k) retirement savings due to the recent collapse in
the price of Company stock.

In recent weeks, the value of the Company's common stock has plummeted
from a high of $90 to a low recently of $5 in the wake of revelations
that for years the Company materially misled investors concerning the
its profitability and concealed billions of dollars of debt through
secret off-shore partnerships set up to borrow and covertly funnel
money to the Company.

The new suit, filed under the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and federal securities law, is similar to two
other 401(k) lawsuits in recent days. Like the other suits, the new
suit alleges that the Company and other individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the law by selling employees Company stock
while knowing the price was artificially inflated, and by locking
employees into Company stock because of an administrative change to the
company 401(k) plan.  The new suit also contends that the Company
violated federal securities law by offering and selling employees stock
without the required prospectus, which, if proven, would give workers
the automatic right to rescind their purchases (made, in many cases,
when the stock was selling for $90 a share) and get their money back,
with interest.

The suit also alleges that the Company violated its federal fiduciary
duties by enforcing a provision of the plan that prevented employees
under the age of 50 from selling the stock they received from the
Company as its "employer matching contribution," even though the
Company knew it was imprudent for those employees to continue to hold
the Company's stock.

Washington, D.C. lawyer Eli Gottesdiener, said he hopes his, and the
related suits will serve as a wake-up call to Congress.  "Congress
sensibly placed a 10% limit on company stock in traditional defined
benefit plans back in 1974, but at the behest of the corporate lobby,
it placed no such cap on defined contribution plans. Today, when
workers have been forced to assume virtually all of the investment risk
and responsibility for funding their retirements, having no such cap is
completely indefensible," he explained.

Although investment advisers generally recommend investing no more than
5-15% of an investment portfolio in any single stock, participants in
401(k) plans offering an employer stock option invest on average around
33% in company stock, based on studies. The Company's employees had
more than 60% of their retirement savings invested in stock, according
to Gottesdiener, who accused the Company of encouraging employees to
"load-up" on stock when the Company knew it was not prudent to do so.
"How many workers have to lose both their jobs and their retirement
savings before Congress steps in and puts a stop to this by placing
some a cap on the amount of company stock that can be in a 401(k)
plan?" he asked.

For more information, access the Website: http:\\www.enronsuit.com


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of
GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (NASDAQ: GENI) between December 21, 1999 and
September 25, 2001, against the Company and:

     (1) Ramy El-Batrawi, the company's former CEO,

     (2) Ultimate Holdings Ltd., a Bermuda investment company owned by
         Adnan Khashoggi that was the company's largest shareholder and
         its alleged accomplice, and

     (3) others Company-related defendants

The suit alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising from an elaborate two-year
scheme to manipulate the market in the company's stock. The complaint
also alleges that, during the class period, Company stock price was
artificially inflated by the defendants, who directly (through complex
insider trading) and indirectly (through the dissemination of
materially false and misleading information about the company)
manipulated the market for the Company's common stock.

Allegedly that scheme began in December 1999 when Khashoggi and El-
Batrawi made a secret stock payment worth $3 million to financial
commentator Courtney Smith to tout the company's stock. Smith
recommended the stock at least 18 times during appearances on CNBC,
CNN, Bloomberg Television and other media outlets.  By the time of
Smith's last appearance in March 2001, the stock had jumped from less
than $1.50 per share in December 1999 to highs of between $14 and $28
per share.  The stocked jumped again in May 2001, soaring 42% in a
single week after a buy recommendation by Rafi Khan, an ex-stockbroker
banned from the securities industry who had spent several days meeting
Company executives at their offices.  According to the complaint, the
defendants accentuated the stock run-up with their own false statements
and insider trading. By late summer, the stock was selling at more than
$17 per share and Ultimate Holdings, Khashoggi's company, had reaped
some $7 million in illegal insider trading "short-swing" profits.

Moreover, as the complaint alleges, during the late summer defendants
directly intervened in the market at critical times in order to support
the company's stock price (at times accounting for nearly 90% of the
shares traded). The final chapter in the alleged fraud began in
September 2001 when, in order to facilitate short-selling, 7.2 million
Company shares were loaned to Native Nations Securities, Inc., a small
firm in New Jersey.  The only entity holding enough shares to make the
loan was Khashoggi's Ultimate Holdings. Native Nations, in turn, loaned
the 7.2 million shares to MJK Clearing, Inc., which then re-loaned the
shares to at least four other securities firms.

When the Company's share price later fell and the other firms asked for
repayment, Native Nations revealed that someone had altered its books
and had walked away with $60 million.  The Securities Investor
Protection Corporation seized MJK Clearing for insufficient capital -
producing the largest failure of a U.S. brokerage firm in at least 30
years.  The Nasdaq Stock Market halted trading in Company stock on
September 25, 2001, but not before El-Batrawi had sold $1.7 million
worth of his stock. The Securities and Exchange Commission has since
announced a formal investigation.

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 or 888.529.4787 (toll-free) by E-Mail: obraun@kmslaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: www.kmslaw.com


IASIAWORKS INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Iasiaworks, Inc.
(NASDAQ: IAWK) between August 3, 2000 and November 27, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Joann F. Patrick-Ezell,

     (2) Jonathan F. Beizer,

     (3) Farrokh K. Billimoria,

     (4) Daniel A. Carroll,

     (5) Robert Lee,

     (6) Peter T. Morris,

     (7) William R. Stensrud,

     (8) William P. Tai,

     (9) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

    (10) Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. and

    (11) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) in August 2000. Specifically,
the prospectus misleadingly stated that the proceeds that would be
raised from the IPO would be sufficient to fund several of the
Company's needs for at least nine months, including the establishment
of the first three large-scale Internet Data Centers needed to augment
the small scale centers then in existence.

In November 2000, the defendants issued a press release indicating that
it would be building data centers that were much larger than described
in the prospectus and at a much greater cost, so much so that the
Company would be forced to borrow additional money to complete the
project. The market's reaction to this announcement was harsh. From a
closing price of $7.81 on November 24, the stock slid to $6 3/8 on
November 27 and to $4 7/16 on November 28, representing a 43% drop in
just two days.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800.320.5081 by E-mail: iasiaworkscase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Integrated
Information Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: IISX) between March 17, 2000 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.  The action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Lehman Brothers, Inc, and
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In March 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
4,600,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per
share.  In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.  The complaint
further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

     (2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         defendants 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 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 E-mail: IIScase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


INTERNET SECURITY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
on behalf of purchasers of Internet Security Systems (Nasdaq: ISSX)
between April 5, 2001 and July 2, 2001, inclusive, against the Company
and certain of its officers.  

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.  The complaint also alleges
that during this period of artificial inflation, Company insiders took
advantage of their insider status to sell thousands of their own shares
of ISSX stock at artificially high prices for proceeds of over $18
million.  The Company further took advantage of the artificially
inflated share prices by using its stock as currency to make
acquisitions.

In July 2001, however, defendants revealed that rather than achieving
revenues of $64-67 million for the second quarter as they had led
investors to expect, the Company's revenues were actually in the $50-52
million range.  Instead of earning $0.15 to $0.16 per share, the
Company would actually suffer losses of up to $0.02 per share.
Ultimately, the Company announced losses of $0.13 per share for the
quarter.  As a result of these announcements, Company stock fell by
more than 40% in one day, thus causing damages to class members.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or 888.
643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenze182
   

NEXTCARD INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Nextcard, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXCD) and certain of the Company's
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the Company's common stock between March 30, 2000 and
October 30, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the class
period, defendants knew but failed to disclose that the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading and violated
GAAP because, among other reasons, they:

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

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

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

Because of this improper accounting, the Company's reported earnings
for fiscal 1999, 2000, and the first two quarters of fiscal 2001 were
materially misstated. The truth was revealed before the market opened
on October 31, 2001, when the Company disclosed for the first time that
federal bank regulators from the Office of The Comptroller of the
Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had ordered the Company
to:

     (i) amend its accounting practices;

    (ii) increase its protection against bad loans;

   (iii) exit certain business lines; and

    (iv) cease certain marketing practices.

As a result of the required changes, the Company disclosed that bank
examiners had declared NextCard "significantly undercapitalized,"
according to FDIC guidelines, which means that NextCard will not be
able to make most business decisions without the approval of bank
regulators and will be restricted in its ability to open new accounts.
This news caused the price of the Company's stock to plummet
drastically from $5.35 per share to $0.87 per share, a one-day decline
of 84%. .As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements
during the class period, the price of Nextcard common stock traded at
artificially inflated levels.

For more information, contact Jonathan K. Levine or Christine Fox by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 800.
290.1952 or 212.687.1980 by Fax: 212.687.7714 by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


PROTECTION ONE: Sued By Former Dealers For Breach of Contract in KY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. faces a class action filed by Six
former Protection One dealers in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, styled Total Security Solutions, Inc., et
al. v. Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:99CV-
326-H.  The suit, commenced in May 21, 1999, alleges breach of contract
arising from the way the Company interpreted their dealer contracts.

In September 1999, the court granted the Company's motion to stay the
proceeding pending the individual plaintiff's pursuit of arbitration,
as required by the terms of their agreements.  In June 2000, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion to have collective arbitration.
Notwithstanding the court's ruling, the six former dealers filed a
motion to compel consolidated arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association (AAA).  The AAA later denied the
dealers' motion and advised they would proceed on only one matter at a
time.  Only one dealer is presently proceeding with arbitration, which
is scheduled for February 19, 2002.


SHOPKO STORES: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC has entered an appearance in a class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin this
week on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased securities of
Shopko Stores, Inc. (NYSE:SKO) during the period from March 9, 2000
through November 9, 2000, inclusive. The suit alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between March 9, 2000 and
November 9, 2000, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company
securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements concerning the integration of its acquisition of
Pamida Holding Corporation, the owner and operator of Pamida discount
stores, Shopko's financial results and the Company's prospects. The
suit alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company
was experiencing significant shipping and inventory control problems at
Pamida's distribution centers.

On November 9, 2000, the Company issued a press release announcing its
earnings for the third quarter of 2000 reporting a loss of ($0.23) per
share - far below the $.02 to $.07 per share previously represented by
the Company - and revealed that it was experiencing problems at
Pamida's distribution centers and that those problems accounted for the
Company's reduced earnings.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Robin Switzenbaum or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888.891.2289 or 215.875.3000 by Fax: 215.875.5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.investorprotect.com


SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Milberg Weiss Files 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 SilverStream
Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: SSSW) between August 16, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) David A. Litwack,

     (4) Craig A. Dynes and

     (5) David R. Skok.

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

In August 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
3,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16 per
share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The complaint
further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800.320.5081 by E-mail: silverstreamcase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


SIRIUS SATELLITE: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in Vermont
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Vermont on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.
(NASDAQ:SIRI) from between February 17, 2000 and April 2, 2001,
inclusive against the Company (formerly known as CD Radio, Inc.) and:

     (1) David Margolese,

     (2) Robert D. Briskman, and

     (3) Patrick L. Donnelly.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose facts known to them, or recklessly
disregarded by them, which demonstrated that the announced commercial
launch dates for the Company's satellites required for the Company's
service were impossibly ambitious. Defendants knew, or recklessly
disregarded, that it would be impossible for the Company to offer its
service commercially by the end of 2000, as initially disclosed, or
early in 2001, as subsequently disclosed.

The complaint alleges that at all times during the class period
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and press
releases concerning when the Company's service would be commercially
available, which caused the market price of common stock to be
artificially inflated. When the truth about the Company's business was
revealed to the public, the price of common stock dropped
precipitously.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 800.337.4983 (toll-free) by Fax:
212.490.2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


SMARTDISK CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of SmartDisk Corp.
(NASDAQ: SMDK) between October 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens Inc and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In October 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
3,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $13
per share.  In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The complaint
further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800.320.5081 by E-mail: smartdiskcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


TENFOLD CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah on
behalf of purchasers of TenFold Corporation (NASDAQ:TENF) common stock
during the period between January 18, 2000 and August 14, 2000.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
Company describes itself as a leading provider of large-scale e-
business applications for customers in banking, communications, energy,
healthcare, insurance, investment management and other industries.

The suit alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements
with respect to the Company's ability to deliver applications on
target, that worked and were on time. Defendants also made false and
misleading statements concerning the revenues to be derived from its
software sales and the quality of its receivables.

Further, the Company concealed the fact that:

     (1) the quality of its receivables was rapidly deteriorating;

     (2) the length of its sales cycle was exploding;

     (3) it failed and/or was unable to produce a stable environment to
         conduct acceptance tests;

     (4) it falsely represented "completion dates" in order to induce
         customers to sign contracts; and

     (5) its customers were canceling contracts and/or refusing to pay
         for delivered product which defendants were booking as revenue
         and receivables.

These statements and omissions artificially inflated the price of
Company stock to a class period high of $70. This upsurge in the
Company's stock price caused by defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements allowed defendants to sell 508,000 shares of
Company stock for proceeds of $26.5 million.

The Defendants' scheme began to unravel when on July 10, 2000 the
Company disclosed preliminary results for the second quarter ending
June 30, 2000, which were well below expectations.  After this
announcement, the price of Company stock fell nearly 40% to $10-1/4 per
share on volume of about 6.6 million shares, more than 25 times the
three-month daily average.  The full extent of defendants' scheme was
not revealed until August 14, 2000, when the Company announced its
actual results for the second quarter ending June 30, 2000. In that
press release, the Company announced that its net loss for the quarter
would be $(6.5) million, or $(0.19) per share, well below the
projections in the July 10, 2000 press release.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800.320.5081 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


TERRORIST ATTACK: Compensation Fund For Victims To Begin December 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States has set up a compensation fund, set to begin December
21, for the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack and their
families.  The fund, established by Congress in September, will
dispense money, the amounts of which have yet to be determined, to
cover lost wages and the victim's pain and suffering.  The fund was
created in September as an alternative to filing class actions and
other lawsuits against airlines and entities, where those who place
claims will forfeit their right to sue.

This week, Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Washington lawyer
Kenneth Feinberg to oversee the fund.  Feinberg will play an important
role in determining how the compensation fund will work, and how much
the victims' families can expect to receive.  Feinberg has considerable
experience as a mediator, taking part in several high profile cases,
notably the Agent Orange cases, and the asbestos class action against
the maker of Dalkon Shield Birth Control.  He will oversee several
critical issues such as how people should apply for compensation,
whether the program should pay for victims' lawyers and whether people
who are not satisfied with their payment can appeal.

The law creating the program says awards should take into account the
amount of "collateral source compensation" applicants have or will
receive but does not specify what sources should be included in
determining reductions in awards.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: 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 Tibco Software,
Inc. (NASDAQ: TIBX) between July 13, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, relating to its July
1999 initial public offering of 7,300,000 of its shares of common
stock, at an offering price of $15 per share.

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

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

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

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800.320.5081 by E-mail: Tibcocase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


TOBACCO COMPANIES: Appeal "Excessive" $145B Award For Florida Smokers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The tobacco industry has appealed the whopping $145 billion award for
sick Florida smokers, calling the decision fraught with legal error and
the award as "bankrupting and excessive."  The suit was commenced in
Miami Dade Circuit Court.  The jury later decided that cigarettes were
deadly and addictive opening the door for $12.7 million in compensatory
damage awards for three smokers and group punitive damages the largest
jury award ever.  Five tobacco companies filed a 174-page appeal in the
3rd District Court of Appeals in Miami, starting what is expected to be
a protracted legal battle over the July 2000 verdict.
  
The five companies involved in the suit are:

     (1) Philip Morris Companies,

     (2) RJ Reynolds,

     (3) Brown & Williamson,

     (4) Lorillard and

     (5) the Liggett Group

Liggett, the smallest of the industry's five biggest companies, did not
join in the joint court filing with the other companies.

Philip Morris Vice President Bill Ohlemeyer said that each of the
phases of the case "were infected with legal error and tainted with the
misconduct of counsel," according to an Associated Press report.  He
also said the trial was marred by "a series of critical errors by the
trial judge leading to an unconstitutional and unjust result."  The
appeal also criticized the closing arguments of smokers' attorney
Stanley Rosenblatt, saying he "compared defendants to defenders of
slavery and the Holocaust" before a predominantly black jury.   
Ohlmeyer asserted "Where are the lines that can't be crossed that
prevent a party from getting a fair trial.Florida law and your sense of
fairness and justice tell you that something happened in the case that
shouldn't have happened."

Rosenblatt did not react to the appeal itself but said that it would
take longer than 30 days to respond. "Undoubtedly with the thickness of
the appendix, we may very well need an extension. It's a massive amount
of material," he said. "I was advised it's in two boxes."


TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Against American Income
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the two-year-old case against American Income Life
Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Torchmark Corporation, have appealed
the ruling in September affirming the company's motion for summary
judgment.  According to a Securities and Exchange Commission report
filed recently by Torchmark, the case is now before the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  

In September, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
ruled in favor of American Income's motion for summary judgment with
respect to its defined benefit plan.  Said plan has been the core issue
of this purported class action, which the plaintiffs claim is in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The suit,
docketed as Peet, et al v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et
al, Case No. C-99-2283, was filed in May 1999.  Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all current and former public relations
representatives of American Income, assert that they had been
improperly classified as independent contractors rather than employees
and thus denied participation in certain of American Income's employee
benefit plans.

The lawsuit alleged breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful denial of
access to plan documents and other information under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  Declaratory and injunctive relief
together with restitution, disgorgement and statutory penalties were
sought. Last year, the District Court granted the defendants' motions
for partial summary judgment and denied plaintiffs motion for class
certification with leave to renew plaintiffs' certification motion if
they provided the Court with information regarding additional benefit
plans from which they had been improperly excluded.

Subsequently, plaintiffs submitted additional information to the Court
alleging the additional benefit plans and they also filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order granting defendants' motion for summary
judgment.  The Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and
in September 2001 entered a final judgment for American Income.


TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Seeks En Banc Decision On Alabama's 'Repose' Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty National Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Torchmark
Corporation, is pushing for an en banc rehearing from the 11th Circuit
appellate court, which ruled in September that Alabama's "repose" rule
does not apply in the case against the company.  In a recent ruling,
the appellate court said the common law doctrine does not bar claims
made by plaintiffs against the company in the Moore v. Liberty National
Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV-99-BU-3262-S.  According to the
court, there is no reverse pre-emption under the McCarrin Ferguson Act.

This purported class action suit was filed in December 1999 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  Plaintiffs
include all African-Americans who have or have had at the time of
policy termination an ownership interest in certain life insurance
policies ($25,000 face amount or less) marketed by Liberty and certain
of its former subsidiaries. The alleged class period covers virtually
the entire twentieth century.  

Plaintiffs claim racial discrimination in Liberty's premium rates in
violation of 42 U.S.C. (S) 1981, breach of fiduciary duty in sales and
administrative practices, receipt of excessive and unreasonable premium
payments by Liberty, improper hiring, supervision, retention and
failure to monitor actions of officers, agents and employees, breach of
contract in dismantling the debit premium collection system, fraudulent
inducement and negligent misrepresentation. Unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages are sought together with a declaratory judgment
and equitable and/or injunctive relief, including establishment of a
constructive trust for the benefit of class members.  

Liberty filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the
alternative for summary judgment on January 27, 2000.  On April 7,
2000, the District Court entered an order granting Liberty's motion for
judgment on the pleadings and dismissing plaintiffs' claims under 42
U.S.C. (S) 1981 with prejudice as time-barred and dismissing their
state law claims without prejudice to re-file in state court if
desired. Plaintiffs subsequently filed motions with the District Court
to reconsider its April 17, 2000 order and for permission to file an
amended complaint adding similar claims under 24 U.S.C. (S) 1982.
Liberty opposed this motion.  

On June 22, 2000, a purported class action, with allegations comparable
to those in the Moore case, was filed against Liberty in the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (Baldwin v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, Case No. CV 00-684).  The Baldwin case is currently
stayed pending disposition of the Moore case.  On July 3, 2000, the
District Court issued an order in the Moore case granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motions. The District Court ordered the
Moore plaintiffs to file an amended complaint setting forth their
claims under 28 U.S.C. (S)(S) 1981 and 1982 and, if such claims are
timely, any state law claims for breach of contract related to the
discontinuance of debit collections, and dismissed with prejudice all
remaining state law claims of the plaintiffs as time-barred by the
common law rule of repose.

On July 14, 2000, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint with the
District Court and Liberty filed a motion to alter or amend the
District Court's July order or, in the alternative, requested that the
District Court certify for purposes of appeal the issue whether the
state law doctrine of repose should be applied to and bar plaintiffs'
actions under (S)(S) 1981 and 1982.

The District Court entered such an order on July 21, 2000 and stayed
proceedings in Moore pending resolution of Liberty's petition to the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Liberty filed a
petition on July 30, 2000 with the Eleventh Circuit seeking that
Court's permission to appeal the portions of the District Court's July
order in Moore granting the plaintiffs the right to file the amended
complaint.

The Eleventh Circuit Court granted Liberty's motion and agreed to
consider Liberty's arguments regarding the applicability of the state
law of repose to actions under (S)(S) 1981 and 1982. The court heard
oral arguments on July 20, 2001. On September 28, 2001, the circuit
court ruled that the rule of repose was not a bar to the Moore claims
in federal court.


WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files 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 Winstar
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: WCII) between August 2, 2000, and April
2, 2001 inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) William J. Rouhana, Jr.,

     (2) Richard J. Uhl and

     (3) Nathan Kantor

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between August 2, 2000 and April 2, 2001, regarding the
Company's performance and future prospects. Specifically, defendants
indicated to investors that the Company was experiencing significant
growth and was sufficiently funded through the first quarter of 2002.

In truth, however, the Company's strong financial results were the
result of improper accounting practices in which it capitalized
numerous capital expenditures as assets instead of as expenses causing
its EBITDA to be materially overstated. The Company also overstated its
revenues by improperly reporting non-collectible receivables as
revenues. Investors finally became aware of the Company's problems when
it announced that it would be delaying the filing of its Form 10-K
because it was involved in material transactions that precluded it from
making a timely filing.

The Company then announced that it was "halting" its expansion plans
and would be laying off approximately half of its workforce. The
reaction to these announcements was immediate and punitive.  Shares of
the Company's stock closed at $0.875 per share from a prior close of
$2.16 per share and on April 6,2001, shares declined even further to
close at $0.40, far less than the class period high of $32 per share.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone:
800.320.5081 by E-mail: winstarcase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.milberg.com




                              *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *