CAR_Public/011207.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, December 7, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 239

                              Headlines


ASIA PULP: Lead Plaintiff Yet To Be Named In New York Securities Suits
AUCTION HOUSES: Deliberations In Reseller Price-Fixing Suit Proceeds
CHARTERED SEMICONDUCTOR: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
COBALT NETWORKS: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA

ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
FLORIDA: Federal Judge Throws Out Suit Against State Foster-Care System
FLORIDA: Certification of Sexual Harrasment, Bias Suit V Union Affirmed
FLORIDA POWER: Supreme Court Reviewing Age-Bias Suit Claims
GIGAMEDIA LIMITED: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

INDIAN FUNDS: Alarming System Vulnerability Sparks Net Disconnection
INSWEB CORPORATION: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
INTERNET INITIATIVE: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
KENTUCKY: School Board Settles School "Sports Equality" Suit
LANZO CONSTRUCTION: Sued By IL Residents After Rains Cause Flooding

LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. KY
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in KY
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: FL Consumers To Continue Suit Despite Settlement
NEXTCARD INC.: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. California
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

REGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
REZULIN LITIGATION: Judge Refuses To Grant Certification To WV Suit
STARMEDIA NETWORK: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
THESTREET.COM: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VANTAGEMED CORPORATION: Reaches Pact To Settle Securities Suit in CA

VIRATA CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WASHINGTON: Foster Care Declared "Inadequate", Court To Oversee Program
WORLD WRESTLING: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in VA
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA


                              *********


ASIA PULP: Lead Plaintiff Yet To Be Named In New York Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in several securities class actions accusing beleaguered Asia
Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. (formerly NYSE: PAP) await the appointment of a lead
plaintiff in the suits, according to Samuel Rudman, with the law firm
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP, one of the firms that initiated
a suit against the Company.

The suits, pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York, were commenced against the Singapore-based company accusing it of
misstating financial results to artificially inflate its share price.  They
allege that the Company used dubious accounting practices to help it raise
hundreds of millions of dollars in capital through the issuance of bonds and
other securities.

Mr. Rudman said that he could not say specifically how many Company
shareholders have come forward to be named as plaintiffs in the suits.
"There are many plaintiffs in the lawsuit," he told Reuters. "There was I
think about a half dozen lawsuits actually filed, and many more people
sought to move to be lead plaintiff." The various complaints, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, name as
defendants both the company and a number of its associates.

Mr. Rudman adds, "The different lawsuits have different defendants...Some
are against the company, some company insiders, and some of the lawsuits
name the auditors, Arthur Andersen and some of the investment bankers that
sold the bonds here in the United States."  Last month, Arthur Andersen
resigned as APP's auditor without giving a reason.  According to Rudman, the
Company has hired Jones, Day, Beavis & Pogue as its legal representation in
the United State.

Company shares were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange in July, while
its Indonesia subsidiaries Indah Kiat and Tjiwi Kimia were suspended from
the Jakarta Stock Exchange for failure to submit their latest financial
statements.


AUCTION HOUSES: Deliberations In Reseller Price-Fixing Suit Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The jury in the auction houses price-fixing class action has begun its
deliberations to decide whether Sotheby's former Chairman Alfred Taubman was
guilty of conspiring with competitor house Christie's two fix reseller fees
to prop up an ailing art market, according to a USA Today report.

Prosecutors have accused Taubman of scheming with Christie's Chairman Sir
Alfred Tennant to steal as much as $400 million in commissions from art
sellers from 1993 to 1999. Sotheby's and Christie's together control 90% of
the art auction market.

The deliberations began after three weeks of testimony, most notably from
former Sotheby's CEO and Taubman prot,g, Diana Brooks, who has pleaded
guilty for her role in the conspiracy and has told the court of her secret
meetings with then-Christie's CEO Christopher Davidge.

Defense attorneys for Taubman continued to deny the claims, accusing Ms.
Brooks of testifying against her mentor to avoid a prison term.  They also
alleged that Ms. Brooks was the one who called the shots, while Taubman
sometimes slept through board meetings and focused on non-financial matters.
Mr. Tennant has refused to leave England to face the charges. The antitrust
case is not covered by extradition treaties.

A guilty verdict could have large implications for Sotheby's because Taubman
is Sotheby's largest and controlling shareholder.  USA Today reports that
Taubman, if convicted, faces 3 years in prison and a $350,000 fine. Bruce
Wolmer, Editor of Art and Auction magazine, said "A conviction would set up
a potential power struggle in preparation to get the company ready for a
sale."


CHARTERED SEMICONDUCTOR: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing,
LTD. (NASDAQ:CHRT) between October 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive
in the United States District Court Southern District of New York against:

     (1) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (3) SG Cowen Securities Corporation and

     (4) Soundview Technology Group, Inc.

The suit 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 225,000,000 of its shares of common
stock, at an offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, the
Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with
the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, 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 Company shares issued in
         connection with the IPO; and

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

For more information, 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


COBALT NETWORKS: Lovell Stewart Initiates 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 Cobalt Networks, Inc. (formerly NasdaqNM: COBT)
between November 4, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit was
lodged against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
underwriters:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

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

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Soundview Technology Corporation,

     (5) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. and

     (6) Chase H&Q (formerly Hambrecht & Quist LLC)

The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 12 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 and is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that certain individuals who were officers and
directors of the Company at the time of its IPO violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling 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 Company shares to customers at the
IPO price of $22.00 per share. To receive the allocations at $22.00, 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 in
flation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and
their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the $22.00 IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices,
which rose as high as $158.00 during its first day of trading.

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

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

For more information, contact Lovell and Stewart by Phone: 212.608.1900 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.lovellstewart.com


DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of DJ Orthopedics, Inc. (NYSE:DJO) stock
pursuant to the DJ Orthopedics November 15, 2001 Initial Public Offering.

The complaint charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors and
its underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On November
15, 2001, the Company completed an IPO of 9 million shares of stock pursuant
to a registration statement/prospectus. The offering was priced at $17 per
share for total proceeds of $153 million. In the prospectus, the defendants
represented that the Company was dependent, in part, on international sales
to fuel its revenue growth and profitability.

The complaint alleges that the statements in the prospectus regarding the
Company's international sales and the accompanying risk disclosures
regarding its ability to generate such growth were false and misleading and
contained material omissions when made. In actuality, by the time of the
IPO, the Company had known that its stock price of $17 reflected the
defendants' contention that it would achieve its 4th Quarter 2001 earnings
estimates. Prior to the IPO, defendants knew that the Company would not
achieve its earnings estimates. Moreover, this information was disclosed to
certain of the underwriting defendants' sales people who, as a result of the
change in the Company's projections, declined to support or otherwise
purchase the shares in the "after market."

Thus, contrary to the representations in the prospectus and obligations of
the defendants, the prospectus omitted to state material facts, rendering it
false and misleading. Public investors who purchased shares traceable to the
IPO based on the Company's representations, paying $17 per share for stock,
have suffered damages.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone:
800.449.4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com/djorthopedics/.


ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) publicly
traded securities during the period between October 19, 1998 and November
27, 2001 against the Company's officers and directors and the Company's
auditors.

The suit charges certain of the Company's officers and directors and its
auditors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The suit alleges that during the class period,
defendants engaged in massive insider trading while issuing false financial
statements and making false and misleading statements about the Company's
purportedly "record" results and strong operating performance. As a result
of these false statements, the Company's stock traded as high as $90.75,
allowing defendants to sell 17.3 million of their own shares for proceeds of
$1.1 billion.

Beginning in late 2001, it was revealed that the Company would be incurring
losses of $1 billion for certain of its divisions and that it would be
restating its results for 1997 - 2000, and the first two quarters of 2001 to
correct for errors which had inflated its net income by $591 million for
those years. The impact of the restatement was enormous.

Upon these disclosures, the Company's stock dropped to as low as $8.20
before closing at $8.41 on November 8, 2001, some 91% below the class period
high of $90.75. Then, on November 28, 2001, it was revealed that the
attempted acquisition of the Company by Dynegy Inc. would be scuttled.
Thereafter, Company debt was cut to junk bond status and its stock dropped
to just $0.26 per share. Then, on December 2, 2001, the Company filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone:
800-449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or Steven G. Schulman or Samuel
H. Rudman by Phone: 800.320.5081 or by E-mail: enroncase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com/enroncorp/.


FLORIDA: Federal Judge Throws Out Suit Against State Foster-Care System
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Federico Moreno dismissed with prejudice a class action
against the state of Florida and the Department of Children and Families
(DCF) clamoring for changes in the state's foster care system.
The ruling was a huge blow for advocates who have worked to create changes
in the system for years. According to a Miami Herald report, the foster-care
system has repeatedly been criticized as "chaotic, insensitive and woefully
underfunded."  Many lawyers and advocates assert that youths are better off
remaining with abusive or neglectful parents than being placed in the
system.

Florida lawyer Karen Gievers initiated the suit in June 2000 on behalf of
all children in state care in Florida, describing the system as being the
worst "abuser, neglecter and exploiter of children in Florida".  Ms. Gievers
said she had earlier settled a similar lawsuit with the state a few years
ago, only to find out that the DCF failed to implement the changes agreed
upon.  Judge Moreno's ruling is the second setback in her efforts to improve
the foster care system.

In his ruling, Judge Moreno dismissed the most significant portions of the
case purely on procedural grounds, instead of on the merits of the case - an
extreme rarity in cases like this.  According to a Miami Herald report,
Judge Moreno cited what he said might become an "unseemly conflict between
state and federal judges" if a federal judge, ruling in a class action, were
to order a state court judge to act in a certain way. Though the suit did
not seek such a remedy, Moreno feared it might eventually occur. He wrote
"In suits for prospective injunctive relief, courts have been troubled by
the specter of an ongoing scrutiny of state judicial proceedings, even those
that are not yet pending, and of having to enforce a federal injunction
against state judicial officers."

Paul Hancock, Deputy Attorney General, told the Herald the ruling sounded
like "an important victory for the state, and the state has tried very hard
to provide quality foster-care services."  He supported DCF Secretary
Kathleen Kearney's efforts saying she "worked very hard since she came to
the position to effect reform."

Children's advocates are dismayed by the ruling.  Carolyn Salisbury, one of
the lawyers helping with the case, criticized Judge Moreno's ruling as
"flawed" because it assumed children can be protected by individual
dependency court judges, even though the overwhelming majority of foster
children are not represented by lawyers.  Ms. Salisbury added that the group
had not yet mapped out a strategy for overcoming Moreno's decision. One
avenue the group will certainly consider is a similar lawsuit in state
court, she said.  "We're waiting to read the full ruling...After that is
done we can formulate our next step in order to best safeguard children who
remain at risk in the Florida foster care system."


FLORIDA: Certification of Sexual Harrasment, Bias Suit V Union Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville's female dock workers prevailed as the 1st Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld class certification for a suit charging the International
Longshoreman's Association, its Jacksonville chapter, and five shipping and
cargo companies with sexual discrimination and harassment.  The
certification will pave the way for a $1 million settlement with the
shipping and cargo companies.

Workers Trevaine Howard and Vonceil Fisher filed the suit along with nine
other women who signed affidavits and declarations for the lawsuit, alleging
they were discriminated against and sexually harassed as soon as they showed
up at the Longshoremen union hall on East 21st Street looking for work.
Plaintiffs testified they were told they can't do the job and routinely are
subjected to lewd comments and behavior. They also alleged they have been
propositioned, promised work in exchange for sex and been exposed to men
urinating off the docks, according to a Jacksonville.com.

One of the women, Janelle Spaulding, who testified last year that "The men
down at the union hall, including union officials...laughed at women who
tried to get work and said sexually explicit things...I have been fondled
and touched in inappropriate places while trying to get work."
Ms. Fisher said that she had been going to the union hall since 1983, but
was unsuccessful in getting enough work to achieve some seniority.  She
alleges that even her two sons, who both started working in the docks in the
late 1990s, have bypassed her on the seniority list, which makes workers
eligible for first preference on jobs. Ms. Howard adds that the harassment
and discrimination intensified since the filing of the suit, "...we were
degraded, we were separated, we were kicked in the butt...It's not fair. If
you aren't in the clique...then you are no use to them at all."

The union and Local Chapter Deep Sea 1408 denied the charges, saying they
haven't discriminated and were not responsible for sexual harassment
occurring on the docks.  They have also decided not to settle with the
plaintiffs. George Spencer, the Local's Secretary and Financial Officer,
told Jacksonville.com the union strives to be "fair and equal at all times"
and really goes "out of [its] way to help the women."  Union attorney Daniel
Shaughnessy said he will continue to fight class action status for the case.
He said he wasn't surprised by the appellate decision.

The suit could cost the union a total of $26 million in lost wages and
benefits, according to the plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Gallagher.  The
plaintiffs also seek equal access to work and an equal employment
representative on the docks.

Edward Birk, who also represents Fisher and Howard, said the evidence shows
the employers aren't alone in harassing and discriminating against women,
saying "The union is the waterfront and controls everything that happens on
the waterfront." Mr. Birk said their next step was to ask Circuit Judge
Charles Mitchell to tentatively approve the settlements so that a notice can
be published advising women of the class. Union and shipping company
officials estimate about 150 women will be affected, but "we think that's a
minimum estimate," Birk told Jacksonville.com.


FLORIDA POWER: Supreme Court Reviewing Age-Bias Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
A pivotal issue faces the Supreme Court in its review of the class action
suit filed by fired employees of the Florida Power Corporation alleging
discrimination. Is a 1967 law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA), which bars on-the-job age discrimination, allow people to sue under
the premise that an employer's action had a "disparate impact" on older
workers?, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate.

Earlier, the Supreme Court decided to review the claims of more than 100
former employees fired by Florida Power Corporation who had filed a
class-action lawsuit charging that more than 70 percent of the employees
laid off during reorganizations in the early 1990s were age 40 or older. The
former employees claimed that the Company fired them because it wanted to
change its image and reduce salary and pension costs.

Wanda Adams and other former workers sued in 1999, but their claims
never reached trial.  A federal court said it needed clarification on
whether the former employees could bring such a suit - a suit contending
that the impact of an action by an employer fell harder on a
particular group of employees, and in this case, older employees.
Hundreds of such suits are filed each year, claiming discrimination, based
on "disparate impact," in hiring, pay, benefits, promotion and firing, but a
majority of the federal appeals courts have ruled that ADEA does not allow
such suits.

The Supreme Court said that with layoffs expected at many firms hit by
recession, it was going to decide if older workers may sue over cutbacks
that seem to hit them the hardest.  A ruling against the workers would mean
that to win future age-bias cases, older workers would have to prove that
employers intended to discriminate.  That is often a harder case to make
than the one at issue in the Florida Power lawsuit, which claims that
layoffs that seemed evenhanded really fell disproportionately on older
workers. A Supreme Court ruling will resolve the split among the lower
courts.

In April, the Supreme Court limited similar lawsuits under the landmark
1964 Civil Rights Act.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in
that 5-4 decision that it is a given that people have the right to sue over
alleged intentional, state-sponsored discrimination.  What they do not have
the right to do, Scalia said, is challenge state decisions, such as
Alabama's policy of offering driver's tests only in English, on the theory
that such requirements affect minorities more than other applicants.


GIGAMEDIA LIMITED: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of GigaMedia Limited (NASDAQ:GIGM) between
February 18, 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 that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In February 2000, the Company
commenced an initial public offering of 8.83 million of its shares of common
stock at an offering price of $27 per share.  In connection therewith, the
Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with
the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

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

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

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1.800.337.4983 (toll free) or 1.212.687.7230 by
Fax: 1.212.490.2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


INDIAN FUNDS: Alarming System Vulnerability Sparks Net Disconnection
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the accounting system used by the
Interior Department to allocate $300 million a year in rents and royalties
for Indians be disconnected from the Internet. A report revealed that the
system had major security gaps that could allow computer "hackers" to steal
money and destroy records. Judge Lamberth said that the Department's system
had no firewalls to prevent intrusions, systems to detect "hackers", or
auditing methods to determine if account information had been manipulated.
He immediately ordered any computer that could access the system to be
disconnected from the Internet to safeguard the trust money.

Alan Balaran, a Special Master appointed by Judge Lamberth, presented his
report stating that he hired an outside computer-security firm, New
York-based Predictive Systems Inc., to conduct a series of "penetration
tests" to check the security of the system.  The tests showed computer
"hackers" could easily penetrate the unprotected system, as parts of it were
not protected by firewalls or passwords.  Through the Internet, the
"hackers" could break many of the passwords protecting Indian accounts by
using a tool called a "cracker." An Interior official dismissed the report.
To prove the official wrong, Mr. Balaran ordered Predictive Systems in
August to "hack" into the system again, this time to switch an existing
account to his name.  The ploy succeeded and was undetected, he said.

The report further recommended that Judge Lamberth take over the accounting
systems to prevent loss of information "crucial to the welfare" of roughly
280,000 Indians served by the system.  He noted that during the past 15
years there have been 30 reports from Congress, Interior and outside firms
suggesting the system was malfunctioning.  Mr. Balaran added that Indian
trust-fund data is "no more secure today than it was 10 years ago" when the
Interior Department set out to "reform" the accounting system. The report,
unsealed due to a motion by lawyers for The Wall Street Journal, will be
used by Indian plaintiffs in their class-action lawsuit to support their
claim that the Court should take over operation of the trust funds.  "This
means that the individual Indian trust system should be shut down until it's
fixed," said Dennis Gingold, lawyer for the Indians.

This creates new problems for the Fund, on top of the many other problems it
faces, such as:

     (1) billions of dollars in royalties that cannot be located,
         possibly lost, stolen or uncollected;

     (2) a Secretary of the Interior who, tasked to "fix" the trust
         fund's accounting system so that loss of funds will not occur
         in the future, instead may be held in contempt of court
         because of her inability to show the court any real movement
         or progress in the development of a new accounting system; and

     (3) 300,000 Indians who have had to bring a class action lawsuit
         in order to bring justice to bear upon the malfunctioning of a
         system that is still robbing them of their funds.

Congress set up the trust funds in the late 19th century to
function as a banking system for rents, royalties and other income owed
to individual Indians for use of their land.  Advocates for the Indians
cite the continuing magnitude of problems with the trust funds to
support Indian requests that Interior Secretary Gale Norton and other
Interior Department officials be held in contempt of court.  Judge
Lamberth, who has repeatedly ordered the Interior Department to fix the
accounting system, will begin a trial over the contempt allegations next
week.

Lawyers for the Interior Department have argued that a judicial takeover of
the trust funds would violate the "separation of powers" clause of the
Constitution.  Spokesmen for Ms. Norton have asserted that this year she has
"moved on several fronts" to improve the system, which has experienced
decades of complaints and has lost a substantial number of Indian records.


INSWEB CORPORATION: Lovell Stewart Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of InsWeb Corporation (NasdaqNM: INSW) between
July 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint was lodged
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
underwriters:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and

     (3) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
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. It is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling Company 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 Company shares to customers at the IPO price
of $17.00 per share. To receive the allocations at $17.00, 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 share
price 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 $17.00 IPO price and then selling it
later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as
$44.00 during its first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO, the
complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their customers to
"kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These
secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based on
how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation.
The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933 because the prospectus 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
underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional
commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above.

For more information, contact Lovell and Stewart LLP by Phone: 212.608.1900
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.lovellstewart.com


INTERNET INITIATIVE: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired American Depositary Shares (ADS) representing shares of the common
stock of Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. (NasdaqNM: IIJI) between August 3,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 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. It names as defendants,
the Company, certain of its officers and directors at the time of the IPO
and underwriters Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
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 ADSs 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, the underwriters allocated Company ADS to customers at the IPO
price of $23.00 per ADS. To receive the allocations at $23.00, the defendant
underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional ADS in
the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement that
customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the
price of the Company's ADSs rocketed upward was intended to drive ADS price
up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the
complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying Company ADS at the $23.00 IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices,
which rose as high as $32.00 during its first day of trading.

In the week following the offering, the complaint alleges, the underwriter
defendants' wrongful market manipulation pushed the price of Company ADSs
even higher, reaching an intra-day peak of $61.50 per ADS on August 13,
1999. 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 ADS allocation.

The complaint 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
Internet Initiative Japan offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO
and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme
discussed above.

For more information, contact Lovell and Stewart by Phone: 212.608.1900 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.lovellstewart.com


KENTUCKY: School Board Settles School "Sports Equality" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Boone County School Board has reached a tentative settlement in a class
action filed in the US District Court in Covington, Kentucky by parents
asserting claims under federal Title IX guidelines, which require equity in
sports between males and females.  The Egans filed the lawsuit last year,
together with two other couples, Raleigh and Barbara Lawrence and David and
Lisa Gatewood.

The growth of fast-pitch softball led to the lawsuit, school board attorney
Gerald Dursing told the Kentucky Post.  Usually, he said, most Title IX
lawsuits involve college sports, but because fast-pitch softball, which
began in most schools about three to five years ago, can lead to college
scholarships, Olympic tryouts and other benefits, girls have been demanding
the same treatment as boys' baseball teams.
The proposed settlement is the second in the case.  The plaintiffs rejected
the first proposal, saying it was not enough to address their concerns that
girls' sports were getting short-changed at Boone County High School,
according to the Kentucky Post.

Under the first settlement, the School Board agreed to build the girls a
softball field at the nearby Sports of All Sorts complex.  The plaintiffs
opposed this, saying Gene Daniels, owner of the complex, would have control
of the scheduling in the summer, in return for upkeep of the field during
that time.  According to Attorney Greg Butrum, lawyer for the plaintiffs,
this would mean that the school could not run a summer program that could
bring more girls into the sport. The plaintiffs also rejected the
settlement, after first approving it, calling it a consent decree.  They
said they wanted a settlement. According to a Kentucky Post report, Judge
William O. Bertelsman said "The class is now opposed to the people who
organized it...I've never heard of this happening before."

After two hours of testimony in Federal Court early this week, attorneys for
the plaintiffs and for the school board inked a second tentative settlement
that would allow the girls' softball team to play and practice on a field
being built at Sports of All Sorts in Florence. It will give the school
control of the field throughout the school year and for most of the summer.
The new settlement gives the girls' teams total use of the field until 2 pm
every summer day, except from June 25 to July 9, when state rules prohibit
schools from organizing any play for their softball teams.  Mr. Butrum said
the settlement"...basically splits the difference...The Egans are willing to
compromise on some points."

Mr. Dusing said second the proposal was "just a matter of working out the
scheduling" and he was confident the Boone County Board of Education would
approve it.  Boone County School Superintendent Brian Blavant expressed
satisfaction with the settlement, telling the Kentucky Post "I'm glad that
we can now go ahead and do what's best for the kids."


LANZO CONSTRUCTION: Sued By IL Residents After Rains Cause Flooding
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of St. Clair Shores have commenced a class action lawsuit in
Macomb County Circuit Court against Roseville, Illinois-based Lanzo
Construction Corporation, after heavy rainfalls overwhelmed the City's
sewers and flooded basements in several houses last November 29 and 30.
Although the suit names only two plaintiffs so far, 140 reports of flooding
have already reached city officials.  Angry residents converged on the St.
Clair Shores City Council meeting about the incident, while some had already
retained lawyers from Macuga & Liddle of Detroit, a firm widely known for
suing local governments in flood-damage cases, according to the Macomb
Daily.

The suit asserts, "(W)hen it (Lanzo) improperly constructed, maintained,
operated, engineered and/or designed the sewer improvement project ...it
knew, or should have known, that such actions would cause (the residents')
property to be invaded by obnoxious odors and water."

Attorney Peter W. Macuga says that there have been "a substantial number of
phone calls from the affected neighbors...We haven't yet pinned down any
specific geographical area, but it seems to be a large problem."

Mark Wollenweber, City Manager, said he couldn't yet comment on the suit.
He told the Macomb Daily "I'm still waiting for an engineer's report. We're
still in the process of looking at everything that happened and determining
who's responsible...But certainly nothing surprises me from this law firm."

The Macomb Daily couldn't reach officials at Lanzo for comment late Tuesday.
The firm is one of several handling parts of a $63 million sewer renovation
project that should take four years to finish.


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. KY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on
behalf of purchasers of Lexmark International, Inc. (NYSE:LXK) common stock
during the period between March 20, 2001 and October 22, 2001, inclusive
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit charges the defendants with issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price
of Company stock. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the
class period, defendants made highly positive statements regarding the
Company's financial results, including strong sales and growth of its
printers.

Despite unprecedented competition in the industry, the Company seemed to be
immune from market conditions, reporting quarter after quarter of strong
financial growth. Unbeknownst to the investing public, the Company was
plagued with an increasing backlog of unmarketable inventory which
defendants failed to properly account for in iots publicly reported
financial results, causing the its financial results to be overstated by at
least $25 million during the class period.
The suit alleges that by failing to take a charge to earnings for the
unmarketable inventory, defendants and other Company insiders were able to
divest themselves of thousands of shares at prices well above $60 per share,
generating proceeds of over $8,000,000.

On October 22, 2001, defendants finally revealed the truth, indicating that
the Company would record a $25 to $35 million inventory write-down in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001, and that it would have to undergo a
major restructuring in order to maintain its competitiveness. In addition,
instead of generating between 70-80 cents in earnings per share for the
fourth quarter of 2001, a figure defendants repeatedly emphasized the
Company would reach, defendants were forced to drastically revise its fourth
quarter earnings' guidance. As revealed on October 22, 2001, defendants
expected only 40-50 cents in earnings per share for the fourth quarter of
2001, a far cry from what analysts and the investing public were led to
expect. In response to the unexpected news, Company stock declined by over
11% to close at $44.77 per share, on extraordinarily high trading volume.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson
by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1.888.551.9944
by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlawyer.com


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in KY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Lexington
Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Lexmark
International, Inc. (NYSE:LXK) from March 20, 2001 through October 22, 2001,
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 materially false and misleading statements to the market.
Specifically, throughout the class period, defendants made highly positive
statements regarding the Company's financial results, including strong sales
and growth of its printers.

Despite unprecedented competition in the industry, the Company seemed to be
immune from market conditions, reporting quarter after quarter of strong
financial growth. Unbeknownst to the investing public, the Company was
plagued with an increasing backlog of unmarketable inventory which
defendants failed to properly account for in its publicly reported financial
results, causing the Company's financial results to be overstated by at
least $25 million during the class period. By failing to take a charge to
earnings for the unmarketable inventory, defendants and other Company
insiders were able to divest themselves of thousands of shares at prices
well above $60 per share, generating proceeds of over $8,000,000.

In October 2001, defendants finally revealed the truth, indicating that the
Company would record a $25 to $35 million inventory write-down in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2001, and that it would have to undergo a major
restructuring in order to maintain its competitiveness. In addition, instead
of generating between 70-80 cents in earnings per share for the fourth
quarter of 2001, a figure defendants repeatedly emphasized the Company would
reach, defendants were forced to drastically revise its fourth quarter
earnings' guidance. As revealed on October 22, 2001, defendants expected
only 40-50 cents in earnings per share for the fourth quarter of 2001 - a
far cry from what analysts and the investing public were led to expect.

In response to the unexpected news, Company stock declined by over 11% to
close at $44.77 per share, on extraordinarily high trading volume.

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


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: FL Consumers To Continue Suit Despite Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haggard Parks Haggard and Bologna PC, a group representing Florida consumers
who say they were overcharged by Microsoft Corporation, will move forward
with their objection to a proposed billion-dollar antitrust settlement of
class-action lawsuits.

The firm represents Microsoft customers in a suit pending in the 11th
Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade, Florida entitled In RE: Florida Microsoft
Antitrust Litigation.  The 39-page civil lawsuit is independent from  the
pending criminal antitrust suit filed by Florida Attorney General Bob
Butterworth against the Company in federal court alleging monopolistic
practices. The action was filed on behalf of consumers who purchased
Microsoft Intel-compatible PC operating systems (OS) and Windows 95 and
later compatible Word and Excel "applications" software products between
Nov. 16, 1995 and the filing of the amended complaint in 1999.

Robert L. Parks, lead Florida counsel in the suit, said in a press
statement, "This settlement does nothing for Florida consumers but deny them
access to the courts...We will file an objection as far as it affects
Florida consumers, later this week. We are trying to get other states to
join us in our objections."

Under the proposal unveiled in late November, the Company and some
plaintiffs agreed the company would provide more than $1 billion worth of
software, refurbished personal computers and other resources to more than
12,500 of the nation's poorest schools.

"This settlement actually costs Microsoft very little," said Mr. Parks.
Critics have said Microsoft actually has about $36 billion cash on hand and
the settlement would cost the company $375 million after taxes. Critics also
say the settlement actually encourages monopolistic behavior.

"This settlement puts the fox in the hen house," said attorney Jim Thompson
of Birmingham, Alabama, who is representing consumers together with Mr.
Parks and Jere White of Birmingham. "The main area of the marketplace where
Microsoft is not dominant is in the field of education. This settlement will
extend its monopoly into this area by giving their software to the schools
and thereby squeezing out Apple and any semblance of competition."

Florida, eight other states and the District of Columbia have not signed
onto the settlement and have until this Friday to state their objections and
proposed remedies. The other eight states are California, Kansas, West
Virginia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Connecticut, Iowa and Utah.

For more information, contact Robert L. Parks by Mail: 330 Alhambra Circle,
Coral Gable, Florida 33134 by Phone: 305.446.5700 by Fax: 305.446.1154 by
E-mail: rlp@haggardparks.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.haggardparks.com


NEXTCARD INC.: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC launched a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased stock or options of NextCard, Inc. (NASDAQ:NXCD)
between March 30, 2000 and October 30, 2001, inclusive against the Company
and several members of its top management

The Complaint alleges that the defendants misled the investing public during
the class period by representing that:

     (1) its wholly owned subsidiary, NextBank, N.A., was "well
         capitalized" according to guidelines adopted by the U.S.
         Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC);

     (2) it had adequate reserves against loan losses; and

     (3) it would make a profit by the fourth quarter of fiscal year
         2001.

The suit also alleges that members of senior management sold almost $9
million of their personal holdings during the class period, while the
Company's share price was artificially inflated.

However, on October 31, 2001, the Company revealed that federal regulators
determined that NextBank's reserves were inadequate, that its credit losses
had been improperly categorized as fraud losses, and that NextBank was now
considered "significantly undercapitalized" according to the OCC's
capitalization regulations. That day, as a result of this news, Company
stock dropped below $0.85 per share, before closing at $0.87 per share,
which is 95% lower than its class period high of over $16.00 per share.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman, or
Wayne T. Boulton by Phone: 800.797.5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased stock or options of Providian Financial Corporation
(NYSE:PVN) between June 6, 2001 and October 18, 2001, inclusive

The suit alleges that the Company, a consumer lender, and three of its top
officers misled the investing public during the class period because, by
changing the way in which bankruptcy losses were processed, recognition of
over $30 million of charge-offs was deferred until the second quarter of
fiscal year 2001. The way in which this change was implemented violated
generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules and permitted
defendants to understate the Company's net charge-off rate and perpetuate
the representation of its continued earnings per share growth.

The suit also alleges that the corporate officers sold almost $22 million of
their personal holdings during the class period, while the Company's share
price was artificially inflated. Ultimately, on October 18, 2001, the
Company was forced to admit that it would not post any earnings per share
growth. On this news, the Company's share price fell to less than $5.00 per
share, a drop of over 90% from its class period high of $59.95 per share.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman or Wayne
T. Boulton by Phone: 800.797.5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


REGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Regent Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ:RGCI) between January 25, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the
Company and:

     (1) Terry S. Jacobs, CEO and Chairman,

     (2) William L. Stakelin, COO and director,

     (3) Anthony A. Vasconcellos, CFO,

     (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (5) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and

     (6) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In January 2000, the Company
commenced an initial public offering of 16,000,000 of its shares of common
stock, at an offering price of $8.50 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 underwriter defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
         in exchange for which the underwriter defendants allocated to
         those investors material portions of the restricted number of
         Company shares issued in connection with the IPO; and

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

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


REZULIN LITIGATION: Judge Refuses To Grant Certification To WV Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia denied class
certification in a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc.
(NYSE:PFE) filed by five named plaintiffs on behalf of some 5,000 patients
who had been treated with the Company's diabetes drug Rezulin in West
Virginia.

The suit asserts claims for reimbursement under the State's Consumer
Protection Act and a medical monitoring program to diagnose alleged possible
"latent" liver injuries or injuries that might develop after the patient had
stopped taking Rezulin, which the Company withdrew from the market in March
2000.

Based upon a full evidentiary record, Judge John A. Hutchison rejected
plaintiffs' proposal to certify the class.  In a 55-page decision, Judge
Hutchison found:

     (1) "...that there are no epidemiological studies which show that
         Rezulin can cause a latent injury months or years after it was
         Taken;"

     (2) that "plaintiffs have not identified a single person who has
         developed a Rezulin-related injury (more than 16 months) after
         the drug was discontinued;"

     (3) that "with the exception of the relatively few patients who
         sustained an acute liver injury while taking Rezulin, there is
         no evidence that Rezulin caused any injury to patients"

Paul S. Miller, Company Executive Vice President and general counsel, said
in a statement that the Company "is pleased with this decision...We are
hopeful that courts in other jurisdictions will consider favorably Judge
Hutchison's careful, thorough analysis and conclusions."  Mr. Miller added
that, considering its insurance and reserves, the company is of the opinion
that the Rezulin litigation should not have a material adverse effect on the
financial position or results of the company.


STARMEDIA NETWORK: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman initiated a securities class action against StarMedia
Network, Inc. (NASDAQ:STRM) and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Company securities between April 11, 2000 and
November 19, 2001.

The suit charges the defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material
adverse information and misrepresented the truth about the Company and
caused plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase Company stock at
artificially inflated prices.

For more information, contact David C. Katz, James E. Tullman or Mark D.
Smilow by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York,
NY 10176 by Phone: 888.593.4771 or 212.682.3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


THESTREET.COM: 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 TheStreet.com, Inc. (NasdaqNM: TSCM) between
May 10, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. It was lodged in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 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 and names as defendants the
Company, certain of its officers and directors at the time of its IPO, and
underwriters:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

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

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and

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

The suit charges the defendants with violating federal securities laws by
issuing and selling Company 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 Company shares to customers at the IPO price
of $19.00 per share. To receive the allocations at $19.00, 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 Company stock at the $19.00 IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices,
which rose as high as $71.25 during its first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO, the
complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their customers to
"kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These
secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based on
how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation.
The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933 because the prospectus 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
underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional
commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above.

For more information, contact Lovell and Stewart LLP by Phone: 212. 608.1900
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.lovellstewart.com


VANTAGEMED CORPORATION: Reaches Pact To Settle Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Health information systems provider VantageMed Corporation (NASDAQ:VMDC) has
reached an agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action
pending in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's stock pursuant to its February
15,2000 IPO.

The consolidated suit consists of several actions filed beginning March
2000, alleging that the Company and certain directors and officers violated
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

VantageMed is a software developer. More than two-thirds of the company's
sales come from data conversion, maintenance, and other services revolving
around its product suite, which handles such tasks as patient scheduling,
billing, claims filing, and insurance verification.


VIRATA CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Virata Corp. (NASDAQ:VRTA) between
November 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York against:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) Warburg Dillon Read LLC,

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (4) Banc of America Securities LLC,

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (6) Dain Rauscher Wessels,

     (7) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and

     (8) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In November 1999, the Company
commenced an initial public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common
stock, at an offering price of $14 per share. In connection therewith, the
Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with
the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the pwas 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 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


WASHINGTON: Foster Care Declared "Inadequate", Court To Oversee Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Whatcom County, Washington, has found the state's Department
of Social and Health Services failed to provide adequate support for
children in foster care, the Associated Press recently reported.  Judge
David A. Nichols of the Superior Court will now oversee state efforts
to improve the care and support it provides.

Attorney Tim Farris, who filed the class action in 1998 on behalf of 3,000
children, said the plaintiffs' attorneys will be presenting Judge Nichols
with a proposed set of remedies for the statewide system.  Judge Nichols
will then oversee the department's efforts to correct the system. The
lawsuit had accused the department of violating state law by, among other
things, shuttling the children from home to home and by failing to provide
adequate mental-health services for them or proper training and support for
foster parents.

Damage claims in the case were settled in September, when the state
agreed to pay $100,000, to each of the 13 children.  The money will be
held in trust for each child until he or she reaches age 30, though
court-appointed trustees may distribute some of it earlier if a child
needs money for health care, shelter, clothing or education.

After a seven-week trial, "the jury found the conditions children are
living in and the way they're being treated by the state are
unconstitutional," said Mr. Farris. "The jury also found the children
are being harmed by these unconstitutional violations."  Mr. Farris
added that:

     (1) the children were sleeping in the department's offices;

     (2) they were placed in the bedrooms of sexual predators;

     (3) they were moved from home to home, and one child was moved 48
         times, he said.

The state maintained the Agency was already moving to correct problems
with the foster-care system.  "We believe we have very good grounds for
appeal and we'll be appealing," said Dennis Braddock, Secretary of the
Department of Social and Health Services.  "I think there were a number
of irregularities in the judge's decision and instructions."


WORLD WRESTLING: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit on December
5, 2001 on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of World Wrestling
Federation Entertainment, Inc. (NasdaqNM: WWF) between October 18, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 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 and names as
defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors at the time of
its IPO, and underwriters:

     (1) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

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

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (4) Wit Capital Corporation,

     (5) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation and

     (6) Chase H&Q (formerly Hambrecht & Quist)

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling Company 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, the
underwriter defendants allocated shares to customers at the IPO price of
$17.00 per share. To receive the allocations at $17.00, 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 stock
price rocketed upward was intended to drive share price up to artificially
high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled
both the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits
by buying stock at the $17.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a
profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $34.00 during
its first day of trading.

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

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

For more information, contact Lovell and Stewart by Phone: 212.608.1900 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.lovellstewart.com


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a securities fraud class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on
behalf of purchasers of XO Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:XOXO) common stock
between April 4, 2001 and November 29, 2001, inclusive against the Company
and:

     (1) Daniel F. Akerson, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
         Board of Directors,

     (2) Nathaniel A. Davis, President, Chief Operating Officer and
         Director,

     (3) Craig O. McCaw, the Company's founder, controlling
         shareholder, and Director

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by, among other things,
issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
condition as well as its present and future business operations. In
particular, the suit alleges that defendants misled the investing public
concerning the Company's ability to finance its business operations until it
becomes cash-flow positive.

Throughout the class period the defendants stated that the Company had
sufficient cash to survive at least into mid-2003 without the need for
further financing. These statements were false, and on November 29, 2001,
defendants announced a transaction where the shareholders' equity was
destroyed in exchange for a cash infusion of $800 million. Trading in the
Company's stock was immediately halted.

For more information, contact Donald J. Enright by Phone: 866.592.1960
(toll-free) or 202.337.8000 by E-mail: DJE@FTLLAW.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.FTLLAW.com.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody LLP commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of
purchasers of XO Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:XOXO), common stock between
April 4, 2001 and November 29, 2001, inclusive against the Company and
defendants:

     (1) Daniel F. Akerson, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
         Board of Directors,

     (2) Nathaniel A. Davis, President, Chief Operating Officer and
         Director, and

     (3) Craig O. McCaw, the Company's founder, controlling
         shareholder, and Director

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by issuing false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition as well as
its present and future business prospects. In particular, the suit alleges
that defendants mislead the investing public concerning the ability of the
Company to survive until it would be cash flow positive.

Throughout the class period, the defendants stated that the Company would be
able to survive at least into the middle of 2003 without the need for
further financing. However, on November 29, 2001, defendants announced a
transaction where the shareholders' equity was destroyed in exchange for an
investment of $ 800 million. Trading in the Company's stock was quickly
halted.

For more information, contact Timothy J. Burke by Phone: 888.388.4605 by
E-mail: tburke@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.secfraud.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  * * *