CAR_Public/011204.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, December 4, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 236

                            Headlines

AUTO INSURANCE: GA Ruling on Vehicles Insurance Affects All Insurers
BE FREE: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
CARESCIENCE INC.: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
CALIFORNIA: Federal Court Dismisses Discrimination Suit V Contra Costa
CANADA: School For The Deaf Sued By Former Students For Rampant Abuse

CGU LIFE: Settles Texas Teachers' Insurance Fraud Suit For $8.1 Million
ENRON CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
FORD MOTOR: Files Motions To Settle Discrimination Suits in E.D. MI
INDIAN FUNDS: Dec. 10 Hearing For Contempt V Interior Secretary Set
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

INTELLI-CHECK INC.: Speciali Greenwald File Amended Complaint in NJ
JDN REALTY: Atlanta Court Approves Settlement Pact In Securities Suit
LACLEDE GAS: Court Allows State Commission To Defend Self Against Suit
NEXTCARD INC.: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NYLABONE PRODUCTS: Dog Owners Sue After Chew Toy Causes Dog's Death

ORATEC INTERVENTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PCORDER INC.: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
SABA SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CALIFORNIA: LA Judge Challenges Federal Ruling In Slave Labor Case

SULZER MEDICA: Appellate Court Allows Arbitration in Hip Implant Suits
TICKETMASTER ONLINE: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UNITED PAN: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY


                            *********


AUTO INSURANCE: GA Ruling on Vehicles Insurance Affects All Insurers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a recent landmark ruling by Georgia's Supreme Court,
Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine announced that he will direct all
automobile insurers, not just the lawsuit's defendant, State Farm,
to reimburse policy holders for the diminished value of cars damaged in
collisions, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported recently.  

"We view the Supreme Court decision to be the law of the state of
Georgia, and it applies to all insurance companies."said Oxendine.   
Oxendine added he intends to issue the diminished value directive next
week.  Insurance companies that fail to comply could face everything
from fines to expulsion from the state.

The Supreme Court agreed with the contention of two State Farm
policy holders, who had filed a class-action lawsuit, that wrecked cars
are worth less on the open market no matter how well they are repaired,
and that insurance companies are liable to pay the difference.

David J. Colmans of the Georgia Insurance Information Service, which
represents State Farm and many other insurance providers that operate
in the state, said the cost of diminished value claims could end up
being passed on to consumers.  "If insurance companies are paying
considerable more money, it stands to reason they would have to look at
their rate structures," he said.

Cathy Steinberg, the state Consumers' Insurance Advocate who reviews
all rate increase requests under authority of the governor, said that  
Oxendine would have to approve any rate increases.  Insurance
companies, she said, would have to prove they were spending more on
diminished value claims before they could pass on the costs.  

Left to be determined is exactly how insurance companies will calculate
the diminished values.  Lawyers for State Farm and the policyholders
who brought the lawsuit will argue this issue next week in Muscogee
County Superior Court, where the case originated nearly two years ago.

The first to be paid will be the State Farm policyholders whose claims
date back to December 1 of last year, when a lower court judge first
ordered State Farm to pay diminished value claims, said C. Neal Pope,
the Columbus lawyer who filed the case against State Farm.  State Farm
put $10 million into an account to cover the claims in the event it
lost its appeal.  Given the Supreme Court's ruling, the Muscogee judge
will have to order the money released from the account.  Pope said he
will make that request at the hearing to be held next week.

Once the money is released, the first wave of policyholders affected by
the class-action lawsuit could receive information by early next year
telling them how to collect.  Payouts could range from a few dollars to
thousands, Pope estimated.  Those who filed claims before December 1 of
last year, will have to wait longer, because a separate case granting
that group relief is still on appeal with the Supreme Court, which is
not expected to rule until April, Pope explained.

Eligible policy policyholders would have had to file a claim after
December 23, 1993.  State Farm has set aside $50 million for those back
claims.  The two lawsuits affect as many as 500,000 claims, Pope has
said.  State Farm insures more than 20 percent of the state's drivers.  

Similar lawsuits seeking back claims are pending in Muscogee County
against eight other insurance companies, including Allstate and
Progressive. They declined to comment.  Together, the lawsuits affect
about 70 percent of Georgia's drivers.


BE FREE: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Be Free, Inc. (NasdaqNM:BFRE)
between November 3, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder.
The suit was filed against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors at the time of the IPO and:

     (1) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.,

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

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels),

     (5) DLJdirect, Inc.,

     (6) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., and

     (7) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors at the time of its IPO violated the federal securities laws
by issuing and selling common stock pursuant to the Company's initial
public offering and a secondary offering of stock without disclosing to
investors that several of the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.
In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges,
underwriters of the Company's IPO, allocated shares of stock to certain
investors at the IPO price of $6.00 per share. To receive the
allocations at $6.00, the defendant 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 Company stock rocketed
upward was intended to drive the Company's share price up to
artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the
complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the $6.00 IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket
prices, which rose as high as $18.13 during its first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their
customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret
commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated
after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his
or her IPO stock allocation.

The complaint also alleges that the Company was able to price its
secondary offering at an artificially high $27.50 per share due to the
continued effects of the foregoing violations.  The complaint further
alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the
prospectuses distributed to investors and the registration statements
filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the
offerings contained material misstatements regarding the commissions
that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose
the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or
Christopher J. Gray by Phone: 212.608.1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.lovellstewart.com


CARESCIENCE INC.: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC initiated a class action suit on behalf of an
investor 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 suit alleges that the defendants 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:

     (i) as disclosed at the end of the class period, 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


CALIFORNIA: Federal Court Dismisses Discrimination Suit V Contra Costa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court dismissed a discrimination class action
filed against Contra Costa County by the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and several business, alleging
the county discriminated against women and minorities in awarding
contracts for county business.  The suit was the first of its kind in
California to challenge a county's contracting practices after state
voters in 1996 barred racial and gender preferences.  The NAACP alleged
that the county's lackluster efforts to attract minority and women-
owned businesses to apply for contracts amounted to discrimination.

US District Judge William Orrick opined that the county did not
intentionally discriminate against minorities and women, even if he
thought the county could have tried harder to encourage them to go
after county jobs, and did a poor job of tracking how many contracts
they landed.  He wrote, "The court has considered the county's failure
to vigorously enforce its affirmative action plans, and finds no
evidence that those failures were caused by intent to discriminate
against women and minority contractors."  He added that the county
consistently "attempted to find ways to assist women and minority
contractors, small businesses and local businesses."

The county's lawyer Silvano Marchesi, expressed satisfaction at the
ruling, saying "Despite the fact that plaintiffs identified some 37 or
more attorneys and paralegals who searched through over 4 million pages
of documents we provided, they were not able to show one single
instance of intentional discrimination."

Oren Sellstrom, attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Contra Costa
Times he was disappointed by the ruling and will talk to his clients
about whether to appeal.  "We think we proved our case. The judge
disagreed."  He concluded "There is an institutional inertia at the
county that results in a subtle bias in favor of contractors with whom
the county is already doing business."

Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond said he believes
the county can do a better job of encouraging women- and minority-owned
businesses to compete for county contracts.  "I believe the county has
never intentionally discriminated, but I still think we can be more
aggressive in our outreach," Gioia said.


CANADA: School For The Deaf Sued By Former Students For Rampant Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
300 former students of the Jericho Hill School For the Deaf in
Vancouver, B.C. filed a class action suit against the province alleging
that the abuse they suffered while at the school has gravely affected
their lives as adults, ruining marriages, damaging careers and fueling
drug abuse.

A 1991 Province newspaper report about the rampant abuse at the school
raised a public outcry, prompting the Ministry of Education to close it
in 1992.  The school reopened a short time later as part of a suburban
Vancouver school district. In 1997 former B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Thomas Berger led an investigation that uncovered "the culture of
abuse" at the school, existent for decades.  His recommendations
included financial compensation, free therapy and funding for deaf-
community resources.  The government quietly started reforms in 1988,
but students who were known abusers were not removed from campus and no
charges were filed.  The government has instituted a compensation
program that promised students up to $60,000 in compensation.

According to Program Administrator Rene de Vos, former students were
reluctant to come forward, saying the deaf community regarded it as a
black mark, "something to be ashamed of."  However, when the program
ended earlier this year, 404 former students had received compensation.
Plaintiff Leanne Rumley called the settlement "insulting" and said, "I
want to seek justice that we deserve." Rumley and others are seeking
between $100,000 and $300,000 in damages.

Rumley was 7 years old when she was raped by older boys previously
abused by a female dorm counselor.  "Sexual abuse became the norm at
the school," said Anne Sheane, a Victoria lawyer handling the suit.
"Families were absolutely decimated by this."  She added parents often
didn't understand when their children tried to report the abuse. "You
had kids angry at their parents who they thought knew about the abuse
when they (the parents) had no idea it was going on."



CGU LIFE: Settles Texas Teachers' Insurance Fraud Suit For $8.1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CGU Life Insurance Company of America settled a class action suit filed
in the US District Court in Nueces County, Texas, by a group of Corpus
Christi teachers for approximately $8.1 million. The teachers alleged
Company representatives engaged in unscrupulous and illegal sales
tactics.

The suit was commenced in April 2000, claiming that the Company and its
representatives sold them a controversial annuity that is barred from
sale in their state. The parties entered settlement negotiations, which
were underway for nearly a year. The settlement is subject to court
approval by January 23, 2002, according to a Boston Business Journal
report.


ENRON CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP commenced a class action suit against Enron
Corporation (NYSE: ENE) and the members of its Board of Directors on
behalf of its employees, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Houston Division).  The suit was filed on
behalf of all Company employees or former Company employees who were
participants in the Enron Savings Plan at any time during the period
from March 31, 1998 to the present. The time period covered by the suit
may be expanded as additional information is discovered.

The suit was filed in order to recover damages for the benefit of
thousands of Company employees whose retirement savings have been
devastated by the financial irregularities at the Company that have
resulted in the collapse of its stock price to less than $1 per share.
The complaint alleges violations of the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), which was enacted to protect employees
with respect to their financial interests in corporate retirement
plans.

For more information, contact Thomas G. Shapiro or Elizabeth Hutton by
Phone: 800.287.8119 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.shulaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Files Motions To Settle Discrimination Suits in E.D. MI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This week Ford Motor Company intends to file motions with proposed
settlement terms to several class actions filed by its current and
former employees charging the Company with age and gender
discrimination in its performance evaluation system, according to
Company spokesperson Anne Gattari.  The suits were commenced early this
year in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, alleging the Company committed "reverse race, reverse gender
and age discrimination."

Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company's Performance
Management Process favored younger, so-called "diversity" candidates
and that the system was intended to support the diversity initiatives
by driving out the older white males.  Under the system, employees were
graded A, B, or C. Those receiving a C could lose bonuses and raises,
and two consecutive C grades could mean dismissal. Initially, at least
10 percent of employees were to be graded C, but that later was lowered
to 5 percent.

Former Company President and Chief Executive Officer Jacques Nasser
instituted the system.  Nasser resigned under pressure last October and
was succeeded by present CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.  Ford has said he
would make it a priority to attempt to settle the age discrimination
suits in hopes of rebuilding the relationship between the company and
its employees.  The Company also said in July that it would discontinue
the system and replace the letter system with three designations: top
achiever, achiever, and improvement required.

Both sides commenced settlement talks this month but would not disclose
the proposed terms.  Attorney for the plaintiffs James Fett said
negotiations to settle the individual suits have been less fruitful.  
He added "We are diligently attempting to resolve the individual suits,
but no agreements have been reached at this time."  Gattari also
expressed confidence that failure to reach terms on the individual
suits would not delay the filing of motions in the class action suits.  
She added a fairness hearing would be conducted after the filing of the
motions.

The Company plans to reduce its workforce by 4,000 to 5,000 employees,
and offered employees voluntary separation and early retirement
packages.  Ford has told employees who are plaintiffs in the class
action suits and who also have been offered voluntary separation
packages that a waiver would be lifted allowing them to receive any
payout from a settlement in the cases.  In a letter sent last week, the
Company said "We want to advise you that by accepting the package and
signing the general release and waiver, you will not give up your right
to receive a financial recovery under this proposed class action
settlement, despite language to the contrary in the waiver."  Gattari
said this was an "exception" and not a change in any Ford policy
"because we want to be fair to everybody."


INDIAN FUNDS: Dec. 10 Hearing For Contempt V Interior Secretary Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
US Federal Judge Royce Lamberth has reset for December 10 the hearing
to determine whether Interior Secretary Gale Norton misled the court
about a computerized accounting system instituted by the Interior
Department to keep track of royalties from Indian reservation lands,
according to an Excite.com report.  The Interior Department and Norton
face a class action suit filed on behalf of 300,000 Indians, alleging
that the government misspent more than $10 billion of royalties from
reservation lands.  Judge Lamberth has ordered the Interior Department
to piece together how much the Indians are owed and is keeping close
watch over Interior's reform efforts.

The hearing was initially set this week, but government attorneys
sought to delay the contempt hearing for a month.  Judge Lamberth
scolded them for stalling and asked them how they could argue the court
wasn't misled, citing two directly contradictory reports about an
accounting system being created to track the money.  One report from
Norton's office said the computerized accounting system was progressing
on schedule. The other, from a consultant hired by the department,
suggested the $40 million accounting system should be scrapped
entirely.

An exasperated Judge Lamberth asked, "What are we going to try?. Did
she lie to me the first time or did she lie the second time?"  The
second report remains under seal due to security issues it raised.
Lamberth suggested it may be released next week.


INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Inrange
Technologies Corp. (NASDAQ: INRG), between September 21, 2000 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed against the
Company, certain of its officers and its underwriters. 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 September 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
7.7 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16
per share.  In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The complaint
further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose 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 information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gustavo
Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800.575.0735 by E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com.All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to Inrange.


INTELLI-CHECK INC.: Speciali Greenwald File Amended Complaint in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Speziali, Greenwald & Hawkins PC filed an amended complaint on behalf
of two short-sellers of the securities of Intelli-Check, Inc.,
(AMEX:IDN) in the United States District Court for New Jersey, Camden.  
In order to expedite the claim and remove procedural delays the amended
complaint will be on behalf of the individually named plaintiffs only
and class action certification is no longer being sought. As previously
announced, plaintiffs include investor Daniel Borislow and the
previously named lead plaintiff, Keith Jones.

The amendments include additional allegations arising out of the
Company's most recent SEC 10-Q, specifically with respect to the
Company's improper restrictions to block the sale of over 940,000
shares of common stock by its' former director, Kevin Messina (the
subject of a lawsuit pending in Nassau County, New York). Allegations
have also been added with respect to failure to disclose multiple items
materially impacting the company's financial position and improper
interference with plaintiff's broker, Paine Webber, by Intelli-Check's
legal counsel.

In light of the amendments, short-sale investors are advised they are
no longer part of the present action and should take whatever actions,
if any, they deem necessary to protect their interests. Except for the
removal of class allegations, all other allegations as referenced in
previous press releases are being pursued.

For more information, contact David A. Speziali by Mail: 37 Oak Ridge
Drive PO Box 1787 Voorhees, New Jersey 08043 by Phone: 856.772.1006 or
by E-mail: dspeziali@home.com


JDN REALTY: Atlanta Court Approves Settlement Pact In Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Atlanta approved the settlement
agreement proposed by JDN Realty Corporation (NYSE:JDN) to settle a
securities class action and a related derivative lawsuit at a final
fairness hearing held November 15, 2001, concluding the settlement was
fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of Company
shareholders.  Additionally, the Court approved the terms of the
related derivative lawsuit and entered final orders and judgments
dismissing all the claims in the securities class action and related
derivative lawsuit involving the Company. In addition to certain cash
consideration already paid, the Company will issue shares of common
stock pursuant to the terms of the class action and related derivative
lawsuit settlements.

Craig Macnab, President and Chief Executive Officer of JDN Realty
Corporation, stated in a press statement "This approval finalizes the
settlements previously announced by the Company in July and enables JDN
to put to rest the most significant issues from the past. Importantly,
it allows the Company to remove the cloud of uncertainty that has been
associated with this litigation. We can focus squarely on the many
business opportunities that lie ahead for our Company."

For more information, visit the Company's Website:
http://www.jdnrealty.com


LACLEDE GAS: Court Allows State Commission To Defend Self Against Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker, Jr. allowed Missouri
state utility regulators to intervene in a class action against Laclede
Gas Company, relating to one death and six house explosions due to its
aging copper gas lines, according to a Jefferson City News Tribune
report.

According to lawyer Lera Shemwell, The Public Service Commission wants
to defend its oversight of the Company.  The commission had earlier
approved the Company's plan to gradually replace about 78,000
underground copper lines that remain in the St. Louis region. The $80
million effort aims to replace about 8,000 pipes per year with safer,
more modern plastic lines.  Judge Dierker, however, denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the case, saying it was the commission that
had the proper jurisdiction to do so.

Lawyer Jeffrey Lowe filed the suit on behalf of the heirs of former
longtime Valley Park Police Chief Louis Brown, who died in February
1999 of injuries from an explosion. Investigators said the explosion
was caused by leaking copper gas lines. Lowe also asked the Court to
order the Company to speed up the pipe replacement and to award damages
on behalf of the company's customers.  Lowe also requested that the
judge take control of the Company's safety plans, but Judge Dierker is
reluctant to do so, citing the separation of powers between judicial
and executive branches of government.

Laclede attorney Dan Ball told the Jefferson City News Tribune that the
plaintiffs in the class action, the customers, were not entitled to
compensation because they would be unable "to prove a physically
detectable injury, a recognizable injury."  Lowe said their fear and
danger to their property were damage enough.  "They know that other
houses are going to blow up, and if there are people in them, they are
going to blow up, too."


NEXTCARD INC.: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of NextCard, Inc. (NasdaqNM:NXCD)
between May 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit asserts
claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and underwriters:

     (1) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.,

     (2) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC,

     (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray,

     (4) DLJdirect, Inc.,

     (5) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (6) Prudential Securities, Inc.,

     (7) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (8) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (9) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

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

    (11) Lehman Brothers, Inc., and

    (12) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors at the time of its IPO violated the federal securities laws
by issuing and selling Company common stock pursuant to its initial
public offering and a secondary offering of stock without disclosing to
investors that several of the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.
In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges,
underwriters of the IPO, allocated shares of stock to certain investors
at the IPO price of $20.00 per share. To receive the allocations at
$20.00, the defendant 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 Company stock rocketed
upward was intended to drive Company share price up to artificially
high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges,
enabled both the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap
enormous profits by buying stock at the $20.00 IPO price and then
selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which
rose as high as $40.75 during its first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their
customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret
commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated
after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his
or her IPO stock allocation.

The complaint also alleges that the Company was able to price its
secondary offering at an artificially high $36.9375 per share due to
the continued effects of the foregoing violations. The complaint
further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933
because the prospectuses distributed to investors and the registration
statements filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for
the offerings contained material misstatements regarding the
commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed
to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed
above.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or
Christopher J. Gray by Phone: 212.608.1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.lovellstewart.com


NYLABONE PRODUCTS: Dog Owners Sue After Chew Toy Causes Dog's Death
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nylabone Products faces a class action suit filed by dog owners after
its popular chew toy "Plaque Attacker" caused the death of at least 100
dogs.  The toy is a semi-flexible polyurethane bone covered with bumps
called knuckles or knobs.

Plaintiff Shirley Hannah said her dog, Rambo chewed the "Plaque
Attacker" into pieces and swallowed them. Two of those pieces stayed in
his stomach and intestine from February of 1999 until surgically
removed in November of 1999. Several days later, Rambo died.

In his official report regarding Rambo's death, veterinarian Ivan
Muennick said "The knobby projections on the toy irritate the gut when
swallowed and serve to catch other foreign bodies swalled by the dog.I
feel that Nylabone should reevaluate the design, makeup, and sale of
the flexibone product. Also any owners using this product should remove
it from their pet's access."

The Hannah family has strived to get the "Plaque Attacker" removed from
store shelves.  A statement from the Company to a Seattle TV station
said, in part, "We are discontinuing and removing all four sizes of our
bones in the plaque attacker line from stores and will introduce a new
improved product shortly."  The station later discovered that the chew
toy had indeed been removed from the Pet Smart store where Shirley
Hannah bought the toy.  However, other Lubbock stores still carry the
product. A Nylabone marketing representative said by phone Friday
afternoon that "Plaque Attacker" had not been recalled. It turns out
Pet Smart voluntarily removed the product based on customer concerns.

The Hannah family alleges the Company has blamed dog owners for the
deadly problem, citing part of the Company's statement which says "When
improperly monitored during use, the bones can become frayed and worn
with the possibility of large pieces being bitten off and becoming
lodged in a dog's intestinal tract."  

Plaintiff Deborah Corcoran said the Company destroyed evidence in many
cases and made a conscious choice to manufacture "Plaque Attacker" so
that veterinarians would not be able to find it in X-ray examinations
of dogs, a charge Nylabone has denied in the past, according to a ABC28
report.


ORATEC INTERVENTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of ORATEC, Inc.
(NASDAQ:OTEC), between April 4, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against the Company, certain of its officers and its underwriters. 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 April 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 4
million of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $14 per
share.  In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The complaint
further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (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 information, contact Fred Taylor Isquity, Thomas H. Burt,
Michael Miske, Gustavo Bruckner, 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:
http://www.whafh.com.All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to ORATEC.


PCORDER INC.: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of pcOrder, Inc. (formerly
Nasdaq:PCOR) between February 25, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive
in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company, certain of its officers and underwriters:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (3) SG Cowen Securities Corp.,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

     (5) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.

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

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers at the
time of its IPO violated the federal securities laws by issuing and
selling Company common stock pursuant to the Company's initial public
offering and a secondary offering of stock without disclosing to
investors that several of the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.
In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges,
underwriters of the Company's IPO, allocated shares of stock to certain
investors at the IPO price of $21.00 per share. To receive the
allocations at $21.00, 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 pcOrder's share price up to artificially high
levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying
pcOrder stock at the $21.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a
profit at inflated aftermarket prices. The stock rose as high as $59.50
during its first day of trading.  Rather than allowing their customers
to keep their profits from the IPO, the complaint alleges, the
defendant underwriters of pcOrder's IPO required their customers to
"kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions.
These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the
fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her
IPO stock allocation.

The complaint also alleges that the Company and the defendant
underwriters of the secondary offering of stock, were able to price the
secondary offering at an artificially high $53.3125 per share due to
the continued effects of the foregoing violations.  The complaint
further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933
because the prospectuses distributed to investors and the registration
statements filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for
the offerings contained material misstatements regarding the
commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed
to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed
above.

For more details, visit the firm's Website:
http://www.lovellstewart.com


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Software, Inc. faces five securities class actions pending in
the US District Court for Southern District of New York on behalf of
all persons who purchased Company shares from May 5,1999 through
December 6,2000, alleging federal securities violations.

The suits allege the Company, certain of its officers and its
underwriters engaged in improprieties in connection with the Company's
1999 initial public offering. Specifically, the complaints allege
the underwriters charged certain of their customers fees in excess of
those disclosed in the prospectus and engaged in certain allegedly
improper activities in connection with the distribution of the IPO
shares.

The Company vehemently denies all the claims against it and states its
intent to vigorously oppose these claims.  It also expresses confidence
that resolution of the suit will not have a material adverse effect on
the financial position of Portal.


SABA SOFTWARE: 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 Saba Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ:SABA) between April 6, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive 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 April 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
4,000,000 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) 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 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 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


CALIFORNIA: LA Judge Challenges Federal Ruling In Slave Labor Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Peter D. Lichtman recently challeged a federal
court's ruling when he rendered a decision which kept intact a Korean-
American man's claims against a Japanese cement company for which he
was forced to work during World War II, the Associated Press recently
reported.

Judge Lichtman's ruling counters a decision made by U.S. District Judge
Vaughan Walker in San Francisco, in September, when he ruled, in a
class-action lawsuit, that thousands of Filipino, Chinese and Korean
prisoners who claimed they were enslaved by Japanese companies had no
legal redress for damages in U.S. Courts.   Judge Walker's ruling also
nullified a 1999 California law that allows victims of World War II
slave labor to sue multinational corporations operating in the state.

Both aspects of Judge Walker's decision were grounded in the peace
treaty between the United States and Japan ending World War II, which
bars compensation to victims of wartime atrocities.  Such lenient terms
were offered Japan because the United States wanted Japan to serve as a
bulwark against communism in East Asia, according to a report in the
Harrisburg Patriot.

Judge Lichtman conceded that his ruling would require review in a court
of appeal and gave defendant Onoda Cement Company, which has a Los
Angeles-based subsidiary, 21 days to seek a review in the state's 2nd
District Court of Appeal.  "This latest decision .is fundamentally
flawed, and we do indeed intend to seek immediate appellate review,"
said Douglas Mirell, co-lead counsel for Onoda Cement.

Judge Lichtman said in his ruling that the federal court erroneously
concluded that California's slave labor law intruded on the federal
government's authority over foreign affairs.  He noted that the law
does not target any particular country, only businesses, and does not
implicate any foreign policy between the United States and Japan.  The
ruling also said that state courts are bound to follow U.S. Supreme
Court decisions on federal questions, but decisions in lower federal
courts are not binding.  Judge Lichtman also found fault with a
statement of interest filed by federal lawyers in which they argued
that California's slave labor law was unconstitutional.  Judge Lichtman
also wrote that it was notable that the federal government did not
challenge claims made by Holocaust victims and other Europeans against
Germany after World War II.  He said the government was acting in an
"uneven manner" by acting to prevent Asian victims from seeking
reparations from Japanese companies. "Facially, this policy, if it is a
policy, appears to be legally unsupportable," Judge Lichtman wrote.  
"This court is greatly troubled by this approach."

Attorneys for Jae Wong Jeong, the plaintiff in the California case,
praised Judge Lichtman's ruling, during a recent press conference,
saying it could lead to reparations for those who were forced to labor
for Japanese companies during the war.  "It's a dramatic, historic and
really quite courageous ruling," said Barry Fisher, Jeong's attorney,
who is seeking class-action status for his lawsuit.  The Justice
Department declined to comment on the ruling.

Jeong, a 12-year resident of Los Angeles, claims that as a Korean
student at Tokyo's Hosei University, he was taken away in 1943 and
forced to break limestone for Onoda for more than a year without pay.
He was not provided adequate food, water and safety, and about 30
prisoners in his group died, the lawsuit alleges.


SULZER MEDICA: Appellate Court Allows Arbitration in Hip Implant Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulzer Medica and former parent Sulzer AG earned a partial victory
after the United States Sixth Court of Appeals allowed the Company and
plaintiffs to let an independent mediator review the Company's proposed
$783 million settlement in hundreds of class action suits brought about
by faulty knee and hip implants.

More than 1,600 lawsuits were filed last December against the Company
after it recalled thousands of hip and knee implants after patients who
were fitted with them suffered severe pain and slipping.  The Company
later determined that oil residue on the hip and knee implants caused
the implants not to bond properly to the patients' bones.

Federal Judge Kathleen O'Malley gave preliminary approval to the
settlement, under which the Company would pay patients who needed
surgery after receiving the faulty hip or knee implants between $57,500
and $97,500 in cash and stock. She also issued an injunction suspending
more than 1,000 individual lawsuits against the Company. Later, the US
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the approval, paving the way
for individual claims against the Company, and raising fears that the
Company may have to file for bankruptcy protection. The new appellate
court ruling also halted for 60 days all individual lawsuits over
defective implants that needed replacing and means the Company does not
- for now - have to pay damages awarded by lower courts.

Martin Schmidt, analyst with Bank Leu says "The worst case would have
been to allow individual lawsuits to go ahead. This court ruling allows
both parties to save face and increases the probability that Medica
will eventually settle with a class action."  Company Chief Executive
Stephan Rietiker hailed the agreement, saying it was "a major step
forward" and reiterated his stance that the proposed blanket settlement
was the best solution to ensure patients were compensated quickly,
fairly and equally.

A court decision to let costly individual lawsuits proceed could
eventually have more of a financial impact on the Company than the
proposed class settlement.  Experts remain cautious over the Company's
prospects, despite general euphoria over the recent ruling.  Zuercher
Kantonalbank said in a briefing note "The risks for Sulzer Medica are
not removed, and a definitive decision about allowing the individual
lawsuits will only happen on February 1. Until then the risk is
impossible to gauge."

The Company is considering the unwanted option of filing for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection if no settlement is reached and the suits are
allowed to proceed as individual claims. Should individual lawsuits be
allowed, parent company Medica is expected to file for Chapter 11
protection for the Company and do so quickly. The groundwork for that
move is already being laid by U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers.


TICKETMASTER ONLINE: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Ticketmaster Online-CitySearch, Inc.
(NasdaqNM:TMCS) between December 2, 1998 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder. The suit
names the Company, certain of its officers at the time of the IPO and
underwriters:

     (1) Banc of America Securities LLC,

     (2) Allen & Company, Inc.,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (5) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.,

     (6) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

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

     (8) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and

     (9) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.      

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock pursuant to the
initial public offering without disclosing to investors that several of
the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.  In exchange for the
excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, defendants allocated the
Company shares to customers at the IPO price of $14.00 per share. To
receive the allocations at $14.00, the defendant 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 Company stock rocketed
upward was intended to (and did) drive the Company's share price up to
artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the
complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the $14.00 IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket
prices, which rose as high as $56.38 during its first day of trading.
Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their
customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret
commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated
after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his
or her IPO stock allocation.

The suit further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933 because the prospectus distributed to investors and the
registration statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the offering contained material misstatements regarding
the commissions that the defendant underwriters would derive from the
IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering"
scheme discussed above.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, or
Christopher J. Gray by Phone: 212.608.1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com
or visit the firm's Website: www.lovellstewart.com
                  

UNITED PAN: 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 (NASDAQ:UPCOY) United Pan
European Communications, N.V. between February 11, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and its
underwriters. 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 February 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
40,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $32.78
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 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.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  * * *