CAR_Public/011214.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Friday, December 14, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 244

                              Headlines


ALAMOSA PCS: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ALCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 75T Water Fountains For Potential Fire Hazard
BLOCKBUSTER, INC.: Court May Take Weeks Approving Settlement Agreement
BORDERS GROUP: Overtime Suit Certification Hearing Set For April 2002
CANADA: Lawyer Sues Electronic Toll Operator For Late Fee Penalty

CLICK COMMERCE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CONTINENTAL CARBON: Columbus Council Joins Complaint Over Soot Nuisance
CREDIT SUISSE: Reports of $100M Settlement Affects Banks, Pending Suits
TEXAS: African-Americans Claim Dallas Demolished Homes Without Notice
DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

FORD MOTOR: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit Alleging False Statements
GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Ruling On Rail Car Explosion Opens Payout Floodgates
HENRY PHIPPS: Enters $1.2 Million Settlement in SF Toxic Mold Case
IMATRON INC.: Reaches Settlement Agreement in CA Securities Suits
INDIANA: IPD Officers Sue Chief For "Discriminatory" Squad Car Policy

JAPAN: Ex-Daiwa Bank Officers Settle Bond Trading Scam Suit For Y250M
KID COOL: Recalls 5,100 Girls Jackets, Vests Due To Choking Hazard
LOG ON: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in Rhode Island
LUMENIS LTD.: Forges Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Senate Inquires Into Federal Suit Settlement

PAC-WEST TELECOMM: Harvey Greenfield Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PROFILE-DESIGN LLC: Recalls 8T Bicycle "Aero Bars" For Accident Hazard
RESONATE INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SAMARITAN HEALTH: AZ Court Rules Ex-Patients Can't Keep Full Awards
VITAMIN ANTITRUST: Vitamin Companies Settle Antitrust Suit For $225M

XO COMMUNICATIONS: Weiss Yourman Files Second Securities Suit in VA
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Savett Frutkin Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA


                              *********


ALAMOSA PCS: 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 Alamosa PCS Holdings, Inc.
(formerly Nasdaq: APCS) between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.  The suit is pending 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 2000, the
Company commenced an initial public offering of 10,714,000 of its
shares of common stock at an offering price of $17 per share.  In
connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The suit further alleges that
the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1.888.299.7706 (toll free) or 1.610.667.7706 or by
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


ALCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 75T Water Fountains For Potential Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alco Industries Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily announcing the recall of 75,000 water
fountains with candleholders. The tea candles on the water fountains
can flare up, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.  The Company
has received two reports of candles flaring up, including two consumers
who suffered burn injuries.

The recalled water fountains have a black base and two tiers of rocks
over which water flows. The decorative rocks come in various shapes and
colors. Two candles are perched above the fountain, set in black
candleholders, and lit behind a painted glass cover. A sticker on the
bottom of the fountain reads, "Made in China." The "Submersible Pump"
attached to the bottom of the fountain reads in part, "Jebo" and "Made
in China" Mass Retailers nationwide sold these water fountain candle
sets from February 2001 through October 2001 for between $10 and $20.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800.862.9816
(between 7:30 am and 5:30 pm PT Monday through Friday) or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.alcoindustries.com.


BLOCKBUSTER, INC.: Court May Take Weeks Approving Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas District Judge Milton Gunn Shuffield said recently that it
could take weeks to determine if Blockbuster Inc.'s proposal to pay a
$500 million class-action settlement in coupons for free video rentals
or purchases, is fair and reasonable, according to a recent Associated
Press report.  

"I don't anticipate a swift decision," Judge Shuffield told attorneys
following two days of testimony at a hearing on the Dallas-based
chain's settlement proposal.  He added that he would probably make a
decision within the next few weeks.

The lawsuit, filed in Judge Shuffield's court in Beaumont, Texas, dealt
with late fees charged to two customers who returned their videos late
between January 1, 1992 and April 1, 2001.  The plaintiffs alleged the
fees were unreasonable, in most cases, almost the original rental
price.

Part of the proposed settlement would be $9.25 million in cash for
attorney's fees.  Judge Shuffield had given preliminary approval to the
settlement in April, but he required Blockbuster to notify possible
class-action participants before final approval would be granted.

Timothy Ferguson, who serves as local counsel for the plaintiffs, said
in a story in a recent issue of the Beaumont Enterprise that he agrees
with the proposed settlement.  "This is very fair and reasonable," said
Mr. Ferguson.


BORDERS GROUP: Overtime Suit Certification Hearing Set For April 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco has
rescheduled for April 19, 2002 the class action certification hearing
for the complaint filed against retailer Borders Group. Two former
employees filed the suit individually and on behalf of all current and
former employees, who worked as assistant managers in Borders stores in
California at any time between April 10, 1996, and the present.

The suit alleges that:

     (1) the individual plaintiffs and the purported class members
         worked hours for which they were entitled to receive, but did
         not receive, overtime compensation under California law; and

     (2) that they were classified as "exempt" store management
         employees but were forced to work more than 50% of their time
         in non-exempt tasks.

The suit, which was later amended to include two additional plaintiffs,
alleges violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code. The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself against the action. Borders intends to contest the certification
of the action as a class action.


CANADA: Lawyer Sues Electronic Toll Operator For Late Fee Penalty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario lawyer filed a class action against 407 International, Inc.,
operators of the world's first electronic toll highways after he was
charged with a C$30.00 (US$19.10) late fee on a balance of 12 Canadian
cents, according to a Reuters Report.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) 407 ETR Concession Co. Ltd., a consortium including
         subsidiaries of Spanish construction company Ferrovial and
         Quebec's public pension fund manager Caisse de depot et
         Placement,

     (2) the Ontario Ministry of Privatization and

     (3) the province's Attorney General

Plaintiff Richard Prendiville says the late qualified as "interest",
and exceeds the maximum annual "criminal rate" of interest in Canada,
which is 60%.  Mr. Prendiville seeks to force the highway's operators
and the Ontario provincial government to refund all of the late
penalties charged to users of Highway 407, north of Toronto, since it
opened on June 7, 1997.

Lawyers representing Prendiville said in a statement the late payment
policy "borders on highway robbery, and the tacit continuing approval
of the province of Ontario in this policy is unconscionable."  
According to Reuters, spokesmen for the Company declined to comment on
the lawsuit, saying it would not be appropriate while the matter was
before the courts.


CLICK COMMERCE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Click Commerce, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CKCM) between June 26, 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 June 2000, he Company
commenced an initial public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of
common stock at an offering price of $10 per share.  In connection
therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The suit further alleges that
the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1.888.299.7706 (toll free) or 1.610.667.7706 or visit the firm's
Website: info@sbclasslaw.com


CONTINENTAL CARBON: Columbus Council Joins Complaint Over Soot Nuisance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Columbus, Georgia Council has voted to join a class-action lawsuit,
filed in US District Court in Montgomery, Alabama, against Continental
Carbon Company, an Alabama company, the Associated Press recently
reported.  The lawsuit charges that the Company is responsible for a
black powder fallout that has been a continuing nuisance for the city.
The first court hearing has been scheduled for October of 2002.

Although Continental's officials have said that their plant is not the
cause of soot that falls on south Columbus, an investigation by the
Environmental Protection Agency concluded that carbon black has been
released from Continental. Following the EPA's investigation, John
Tharpe, owner of Action Marine, Inc., filed suit against Continental,
alleging that carbon black had fallen on his boat dealership.  Mr.
Tharpe, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, contends that the same substance
has damaged his boats and equipment for years, forcing him to sell his
stock at a discount.

Mayor of Columbus, Bobby Peters, said the city hopes to recover damages
and end the problem, which is damaging to both health and property.  
"We think the environmental concerns are paramount over the monetary
issues," Mayor Peters said.  "The main thing is to prevent a continuing
nuisance for the residents out in that area."


CREDIT SUISSE: Reports of $100M Settlement Affects Banks, Pending Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse First Boston will reportedly settle for $100 million a
federal investigation on the charges that it fraudulently handled stock
offerings during the 1990 bull market, news that has begun speculations
through several investment banks, and thousands of individual investors
that filed securities suits against the Company and other investment
banks.

The Company is talking with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the regulatory arm of the National Association for Securities Dealers
to settle the agencies' investigation on whether Wall Street firms
required customers to buy more IPO shares on the first day of trading
to guarantee a newsworthy jump in the stock price, according to a Wall
Street Journal report. The probe involves many of Wall Street's biggest
firms, and has resulted in a flood of civil law suits by disgruntled
investors.

Rivals Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and Citigroup Inc.
unit, Salomon Smith Barney are also under investigation and are being
targeted in the more than 1,000 IPO-related lawsuits.  If the Company
announces the settlement, other firms would probably follow suit to
avoid negative publicity of a prolonged investigation, according to a
Reuters report. Analyst Dave Trone at Prudential Securities also told
Reuters, "The issue is not dead yet for the other firms.There will be a
few more settlements, (but) not of that magnitude," assuming the $100
million figure is accurate.

Additionally, the settlement may help plaintiffs in the securities
suits against dozens of investment banks, and provide investors with
additional ammunition to pursue charges of fraud in the way the
investment banks doled out IPO shares.  According to documents in the
US District Court for the Southern District of New York, forty-two
investment banks and 263 companies face more than 1,000 securities
lawsuits.

John Coffee, Professor of Law at Columbia University, said in a Reuters
interview, "The settlement doesn't imply a formal finding of
liability.But may subjectively influence the court, which may not want
to dismiss a case that has already been deemed as nonfrivolous."
Milberg Weiss, of the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach
said the settlement would have a "strong psychological effect" that
would help their cases,  "It is one of the highest fines in the history
of Wall Street. Everybody can see that there must be a reason."

CSFB and its Wall Street rivals rode the tech wave of the late 1990s
and early 2000 to capitalize on an insatiable demand for tech IPOs,
pulling in billions of dollars in underwriting fees and shattering
previous profit records, according to a Reuters report.

A CSFB spokesperson, as well as spokespersons for the federal agencies
declined to comment on the matter, but one CSFB source told Reuters the
company and regulators have yet to sign anything definitive.



TEXAS: African-Americans Claim Dallas Demolished Homes Without Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------------
African-American homeowners have sued the City of Dallas alleging the
city demolished repairable single-family homes without proper notice,
without due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and without a warrant, in violation of the Fourth
Amendment.

The suit was filed on behalf of all property owners who had a
repairable single-family structure demolished by the City of Dallas'
Urban Rehabilitation Standards Board (URSB) and who were not provided
advance notice of, or the opportunity to contest, the demolition, or
whose homes were demolished without a warrant. The suit stems from the
demolition, between 1992 and 1996, of 580 repairable single-family
homes in predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Dallas. The
homes were considered repairable if the cost of repairs was less than
the tax assessment value of the property or if the URSB had previously
ordered repairs to the structure.

The suit claims that notices of demolition were often sent to the wrong
address and never received by homeowners, even when homeowners paid
property taxes on the homes, and that after demolition liens were
placed on the properties for the cost of demolition. In addition, the
action maintains that the city used overt racial classifications to
determine the neighborhoods in which the URSB would focus its
demolition activities, resulting in the demolition of homes in African-
American neighborhoods at a much higher rate than in non-minority
areas.

On June 18, 2001, an appeals court modified the trial court's decision
certifying the class action. While affirming the trial court's ruling
allowing the action to proceed as a class claim based on violations of
proper notice and warrant requirements, the appeals court reversed the
trial court decision to also allow the class action to proceed based on
racial discrimination claims. The class action will now return to the
trial court to continue in accordance with the appeals court's
decision.


DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all shareholders that acquired the common stock of DJ
Orthopedics, Inc. (NYSE:DJO) pursuant or traceable to an initial public
offering on November 15, 2001, against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and its underwriters.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with an initial public offering of common
stock which contained materially false and misleading statements and
omissions. Specifically, the suit alleges that shortly after the
commencement of trading on November 15, 2001, the IPO share price
dropped precipitously from $17 per share upon news that analysts
adjusted downward the Company's fourth quarter earnings forecast.
Fourth quarter earnings estimates were touted by defendants in "road
shows" to investors prior to the IPO. Defendants did not halt the IPO
or trading in the stock, even though the registration statement and
prospectus failed to disclose, that the fourth quarter estimates were
adjusted downward.

The news drove the price of the Company's shares down by at least 10%,
to close at $15.25 per share, on heavy trading volume of 7.3 million
shares. By its third full day of trading, the Company's shares were
down to $13.16 per share, or over 22% off the IPO price.

For more information,contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888.643.6735 or
610.660.8000 by Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit Alleging False Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Arthur Tarnow dismissed several class actions against
Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F), alleging that the automaker misled investors
about the safety of the Explorer sport utility vehicle and its
potential liabilities for hundreds of deaths and injuries.

The Company and Firestone recalled 6.5 million tires in August 2000 and
an additional 13 million early this year.  The accidents and the recall
has spurred many private class actions, cost the Company about $2.6
billion, and severed its nearly 100-year-old relationship with
Firestone after the two companies traded accusations over who was
liable for the accidents.

According to an Associated Press report, Judge Tarnow ruled that the
plaintiffs had failed to show that the Company made misleading
statements about the Explorer SUV, which figured in a federal
investigation linking it to more than 200 fatal rollover accidents
involving Firestone tires. He also ruled that the world's second-
largest automaker was not bound by law to forecast in its financial
statements the costs of the recall of Firestone tires on Ford vehicles
and lawsuits related to the problems.  The Judge said the Company's
corporate statements contained "vague, corporate puffery" but were not
misleading or inaccurate. Lawyers for the lead plaintiffs did not
immediately return calls seeking comment, according to Associated
Press.

"Although Ford must be accountable and speak fully and truthfully as to
matters it chooses to speak about, the company need not publicly
conjecture about every scenario and every item that it has in stock,"
Judge Tarnow said in his opinion.


GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Ruling On Rail Car Explosion Opens Payout Floodgates
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance carriers for Gaylord Chemical Company may have lost their
last chance to avoid a potential $126 million in payouts because of a
1995 rail car explosion that sent a noxious gas cloud over an area
surrounding the chemical company's Bogalusa, Louisiana plant.  

The 10 insurers had asked the Louisiana Supreme Court to hear arguments
that the hazardous gas release should be considered as "environmental
pollution," which is exempt from insurance coverage.  The Supreme
Court, in a 5-2 vote, recently denied their request, The Associated
Press reported, ending five years of litigation between the insurers
and the Company.  "The battle is now over," said Thomas Kuhns, who
represents Gaylord. "Gaylord has now got a declaration of full policy
coverage."  The Company had argued that the gas release was subject to
insurance coverage because it was caused by an accidental fire inside
the tank car," Mr. Kuhns said.

Gary Zwain, who represents Federal Insurance Company, and who is lead
attorney for the insurance companies, said the carriers are
"considering our options."  Among other things, they can ask the court
to reconsider.  If the court denies a request to reconsider, said Mr.
Zwain, attorneys would then focus on winning the pending class action
lawsuit filed in Louisiana by hundreds of people who claim they were
injured by breathing in the gaseous fumes.

The Company and several other defendants in the class-action lawsuit,
including five of the 10 insurers, agreed to settle earlier this year.
The five remaining insurance companies and Union Tank Car Company,
which owned the rail car that exploded, are preparing to go to trial on
September 16 of next year in Washington Parish.

Mr. Zwain said that that the damages alleged in the class-action suit
will not rise to the $50 million mark, at which point his client's
coverage kicks in.  Coverage provided by the four other carriers that
did not settle kicks in at even higher levels, he said.  "The class
would have to exceed in excess of $50 million before they could collect
a single dollar from us," Mr. Zwain said.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the insurers argued that the
state's 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, which earlier this year upheld a
trial court's 1999 decision requiring insurance coverage, erroneously
failed to apply a three-step legal test to determine if a release into
the air is environmental pollution.  Mr. Zwain asserted if the appeals
court had applied the three-step test, which was outlined in an earlier
Supreme Court ruling on a similar case, the insurers would have won
their pollution exemption.

Mr. Zwain further argued that there are now, in Louisiana, two
conflicting legal precedents regarding these types of cases.  This is
because, the attorney said, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, unlike the
1st Circuit, did apply the three-step test in a case similar to the
Gaylord case.  "We were disappointed that the Supreme Court passed on
the opportunity to clarify the law."


HENRY PHIPPS: Enters $1.2 Million Settlement in SF Toxic Mold Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco apartment leaser Henry Phipps Plaza Associates has
settled a class action in which hundreds of tenants sued their
Manhattan landlord, alleging that toxic mold in their two Kips Bay-area
apartment buildings had damaged their skin, lungs and brains has been
settled, according to a recent Associated Press report.  

Steven Goldman, the tenants' attorney, said the case was the first in
which sickness from mold was allowed as a personal injury claim, as
being hit by a car would be.  Although the lawsuit named seven tenants
as plaintiffs, about 160 families will receive money from the
settlement just as if Justice Louise Gruner-Gans had certified the case
as a class action. Mr. Goldman said that the Company agreed to settle
about six weeks into a trial that was under way in Manhattan's state
Supreme Court.  Mr. Goldman, citing a confidentiality pact, would not
reveal the amount of the settlement, but sources familiar with the case
said the tenants will receive a total of about $1.2 million.  He added
that tenants will receive money according to mold conditions in their
homes and the seriousness of the health conditions they suffered and
that Mr. Phipps promises to keep trying to get rid of the mold.

When the trial opened, Mr. Goldman told jurors that water leakage at
444 Second Avenue and at 330 East 26th Street caused conditions that
facilitated green, purple and black mold growth on apartment walls.  He
said that the poisonous airborne spores attacked tenants' bodies,
causing skin rashes, infecting their lungs and mouths and causing
bleeding from their noses and gums.  In some cases, he said, victims
suffered short-term memory loss and constant fatigue, in other
cases, deaths may have been hastened by the mold.

Colleen Roche, spokeswoman for the landlord, did not disclose the terms
of the agreement, but she said that Mr. Phipps was satisfied with the
disposition of the case.  She said the case was sealed and that the
landlord did not admit liability.


IMATRON INC.: Reaches Settlement Agreement in CA Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Imatron, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMAT) has reached a settlement agreement in the
two class action suits pending against it in the Superior Court for the
State of California for the County of San Mateo challenging its merger
with General Electric Company (GE) that will lead to the Company
becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of GE.

The suit sought to enjoin the merger and to recover monetary relief for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors.  
Named as defendants were:
    
     (1) Douglas P. Boyd,

     (2) Allen M. Chozen,

     (3) John L. Couch,

     (4) William J. McDaniel,

     (5) S. Lewis Meyer,

     (6) Richard K. Myler,

     (7) Terry Ross and

     (8) Aldo J. Test

The Company denied any liability in these matters despite the
settlement agreement.  


INDIANA: IPD Officers Sue Chief For "Discriminatory" Squad Car Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) officers accused their chief
of discrimination for not allowing them to take their squad car home
because they resided outside Marion County.  The department reportedly
had a policy that allows only residents of Marion County to take a
squad car home.

Plaintiffs Sgt. Michael Duke, Lt. Jeffrey Decker and Officer James
Trythall filed the suit in Indiana Federal Court against Police Chief
Jerry Barker saying the policy prevents them from stopping dangerous
motorists on his way home and forces them to spend time before and
after work, transferring police gear between their personal cars and
squad cars.

Sgt. Duke says his personal car is not equipped to pursue anyone.  "And
I'm sure Allstate wouldn't be pleased (if I did pursue)," Duke said,
referring to his insurance agency.  He added that transferring the gear
takes about 15 to 20 minutes. Chief Barker stood fast behind his
policy, telling Indiana station RTV6 that take-home squad cars were a
privilege, not a right.  He did not comment further.

IPD officers are allowed by law to live outside of Marion County.
Members of Marion County's other main police agency, the Marion County
Sheriff's Department, are required to reside within county borders.


JAPAN: Ex-Daiwa Bank Officers Settle Bond Trading Scam Suit For Y250M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Former executives of Daiwa Bank recently agreed to pay a total of 250
million yen to settle a shareholders' class action suit over an illicit
bond trading scandal at the bank's New York branch, according to Jiji
Press English News Service. The out-of-court settlement, reached at the
Osaka High Court, calls for payments by 49 present and former bank
executives, including former President Akira Fujita, incumbent
President Yasuhisa Katsuta and incumbent Chairman Takashi Kaiho.  

Shareholders lodged a class action in November 1995, demanding damages
of $1.45 billion, including $1.1 billion in losses on unauthorized
trading in U.S. government securities by an employee at the New York
branch.  

Osaka District Court ordered 11 former bank executives to pay $775
million, or 82.9 billion yen, in damages, the largest ever amount
ordered in a class-action lawsuit in Japan.  Nonetheless, defendants
and plaintiffs filed appeals against the order with the Osaka High
Court. The settlement came accompanied by a possibility that the High
Court might reject the appeal.  This uncertainty was due to the fact
that the imminent official launch of Daiwa Bank Holdings Inc. as owner
of Daiwa Bank, and two other banks, would convert shareholders of Daiwa
Bank into shareholders of Daiwa Bank Holdings.

The Daiwa Bank announced an-out-of-court settlement, however, which
said that both defendants and plaintiffs shared the view that
settlement, rather than continued court action, would benefit both the
bank and the shareholders.  Mr. Katsuta, President of Daiwa Bank
Holdings, told reporters that the lawsuit was settled in a manner
satisfactory to Daiwa Bank Holdings, Daiwa Bank and shareholders.  
However, he denied bank executives' responsibility for the bond-trading
scandal.


KID COOL: Recalls 5,100 Girls Jackets, Vests Due To Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kid Cool LLC is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 5,100 Baby Cool and
Kid Cool girls' jackets and vests. The zipper pull and metal ring on
these garments can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.
The jackets and vests were sold exclusively at Sears department stores
nationwide from September 2001 through October 2001 for between $16 and
$19.

The Company has received one report of a child who removed the zipper
pull, placed it in her mouth and began to choke on the metal ring that
attaches the zipper pull to the jacket.  The recalled garments are 100-
percent polyester girls' fleece- hooded jackets and sleeveless vests.
The garments are pink or violet in color and were sold in both infant
sizes 9-24 months and toddler sizes 2T-4T. The garments have a zipper
front with a rubber zipper pull attached by a metal ring. Two pockets
on the front of the garment have flowers on them. A label sewn on the
inside neck of the garments reads "Baby Coolc," "Kid Cool Collections,"
and "Made in Hong Kong."


For more information, contact Kid Cool LLC by Phone: 800.315.2376 Ext.
183 (between 10 am and 6 pm ET Monday through Friday) or visit the
Sears Website: http://www.sears.com.


LOG ON: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in Rhode Island
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island, on behalf of purchasers of Log On America, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOAX)
securities between April 22, 1999 and November 20, 2000, inclusive,
against the Company and the following:

     (1) David R. Paolo, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
         founder; and

     (2) Kenneth M. Cornell, Chief Financial Officer

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
repeatedly issued statements indicating that, among other things, the
Company was on track to achieve the goals of its business plan and that
it was successfully growing its service offerings and customer base
through its numerous acquisitions.

The suit alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things, they failed to disclose or
misrepresented:

     (i) that the revenues the Company was generating from its customer
         base, which was predominantly consumer-focused, were not
         sufficient to offset the extensive capital costs that the
         Company was incurring in order to build out its network and
         provision its products;

     (2) that the Company's "growth-by-acquisition" strategy was not
         meeting with success as the Company had acquired a collection
         of disparate businesses which it was unable to effectively
         integrate into its existing business;

     (3) that the Company was experiencing weakening demand for its
         products and services and was attempting to transition into
         different markets in order to reinvigorate its sales growth;
         and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing adverse factors, the Company
         would not be profitable in the near-term, if at all, and would
         have to completely restructure its operations and slash costs.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole,
Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800.575.0735 or by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com.Your e-mail should refer to Log On America.


LUMENIS LTD.: Forges Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumenis Ltd. (NASDAQ:LUME) has reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in 1998 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated suit names the Company, Salomon Smith Barney Inc., and
several additional current and former directors and officers as
defendants.  The suit alleges irregularities in the way in which the
Company reported its financial results and disclosed certain facts
throughout 1997 and 1998 and in the alleged "tipping" of non-public
information to Salomon Smith Barney Inc. in September 1998.

In December 1999, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The Court later entered an order dismissing the claim
against the Company's director and officer defendants and denying the
remaining dismissal counts. The parties then entered into a scheduling
order and have commenced discovery.

The terms of the settlement, which is subject to Court approval,
include a cash payment of $4.5 million and the issuance of between
420,000 and 500,000 shares of Company stock to plaintiffs. Due to the
resolution of a dispute with one of the two re-insurers, the total
consideration to be paid is less than previously announced and provided
for in 2nd Quarter of 2002. As a consequence the Company will recognize
a gain in connection with the settlement.

The final number of shares to be issued will be based upon the average
closing share price over the 15 trading days prior to the final court
hearing on the settlement. The shares will be freely tradable upon
issuance to members of the settlement class.

"I am pleased that we have finally settled this claim, one of the last
of several large suits inherited from the previous management," said
Yacha Sutton, President and CEO of Lumenis, in a statement. "The
Company intends to pursue reimbursement of the $4.5 million and
expenses as a creditor of Reliance Insurance Company, which is now in
liquidation."

The settlement agreement is subject to preliminary and final approval
from the Court after notice to the class and the opportunity for
consideration of any objections. The Court is likely to hold a hearing
on final approval of the settlement in the first half of 2002.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Senate Inquires Into Federal Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversial Microsoft Corporation faced the Senate Judiciary
Committee last week to allow lawmakers to ask the Company and the
Justice Department about the settlement that ended the historic
antitrust case, according to an Associated Press report.

Justice antitrust head Charles A. James and Microsoft lawyer Charles
"Rick" Rule faced a skeptical committee, which included Sen. Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, who was instrumental in the inception of the antitrust
case during the Clinton administration. Last month, Sen. Hatch sent a
list of detailed questions about the settlement to Mr. James.

According to the Associated Press, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, also
called for hearings about the Company's new Windows XP operating system
and said the Company intentionally shut out the Eastman Kodak Co.,
which makes digital cameras. Others on the witness list included
Stanford University professor Lawrence Lessig and two executives from
Company competitors Red Hat Software and Liberate Technologies.

Both parties entered the settlement to get immediate relief for
consumers, according to officials.  Under the settlement, the Company
would allow consumers to remove some features in Windows and release
some of the Windows blueprints to competitors so they can write
compatible software.

Nine states have endorsed the settlement, but nine other states have
been adamant in their opposition to it and continue to pursue their
claims, seeking stronger penalties, stricter enforcement requirements
and to make Microsoft sell a version of Windows without added features.
A Federal Judge will decide in March 2002 whether the settlement is
fair to consumers or not.


PAC-WEST TELECOMM: Harvey Greenfield Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield commenced a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PACW) between November 3, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company and:

     (1) Wallace W. Griffin,

     (2) Richard E. Bryson,

     (3) Dennis V. Meyer,

     (4) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

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

     (6) Goldman, Sachs & Co. and

     (7) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

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 November 1999, the
Company commenced an initial public offering of 12,600,000 of its
shares of common stock at an offering price of $10 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  
         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 shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in
         the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For further details, contact Harvey Greenfield by Mail: 60 East 42nd
Street, Suite 2001, New York, NY, 10165 by Phone: 212.949.5500 by Fax:
(212) 949-0049 or visit the firm's Website:
harvey.greenfield@verizon.net.


PROFILE-DESIGN LLC: Recalls 8T Bicycle "Aero Bars" For Accident Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile-Design LLC is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 8,400 "aero bars" used
on racing bicycles. The aero bars are handlebar extensions that either
mount in the center of the handlebars or are sold as a complete
handlebar and stem system. The aero bars allow riders to ride in an
aerodynamic crouching position. The brackets that attach the aero bars'
forearm pads, where riders rest their arms, can loosen or separate
during use, causing the rider to lose control and crash. The Company
has received one report of a bracket on one of the aero bars loosening,
resulting in a rider crashing and suffering a broken rib and abrasions.

The recall includes "Carbon X" and "Carbon Stryke" aero bars. The
Carbon X aero bar is a complete bicycle handlebar and stem system, and
includes the writing "Profile Design" and "Carbon X." The Carbon Stryke
aero bar attaches to existing bicycle handlebars, and includes the
writing "Profile Design" and "Carbon Stryke." Both aero bars are black.
Independent bicycle stores worldwide sold the recalled aero bars. The
Carbon X aero bars were sold from August 1999 through November 2001 for
about $349, and the Carbon Stryke aero bars were sold from May 1999
through November 2001 for about $139.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 888.800.5999
(between 9 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday) or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.profile-design.com. Aero bar ZB brackets that are  
welded together or have a spring- loaded flip-up design are not part of
the recall.


RESONATE INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Resonate, Inc.
(NASDAQ:RSNT) between August 2, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against the Compapy, 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 August 2000, the
Company commenced an initial public offering of 4,000,000 of its shares
of common stock, at an offering price of $21 per share.  In connection
therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

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

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

For further details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1.888.299.7706 (toll free) or 1.610.667.7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


SAMARITAN HEALTH: AZ Court Rules Ex-Patients Can't Keep Full Awards
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona's Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial Judge's ruling in a
class action lawsuit filed by nine former hospital patients, the
Associated Press recently reported.  Both courts held that accident
victims who win lawsuits and are awarded compensation based on
hospitals' regular rates are not entitled to keep all the money if they
were treated at discounted rates negotiated by insurers.

Judge Michael A. Yarnell of Maricopa County Superior Court had ruled,
after the trial proceedings, that so-called "medical liens" filed by
hospitals against the former patients' awards or settlements were valid
even though the hospitals' original bills indicated that the discounted
payments were "payment in full." Courts in Texas, New Mexico, Illinois
and Wisconsin have ruled that hospitals' acceptance of discounted rates
as "payment in full" meant that no debt remained.  However, the Arizona
Court of Appeals said state law allows medical liens for hospitals'
"customary charges."

The former patients were pressed by their respective hospitals to repay
money they won that exceeded payments to the hospitals under contracts
they (the hospitals) had negotiated with the former patients' health
insurers.  Although the hospitals cannot seek full repayment directly
from the patients because of their insurance coverage, they can go
after lawsuit awards or settlements won against those at fault in the
accidents, the Court of Appeals ruling said.

Tom Hagen, the former patients' attorney, said he would appeal the
ruling by the three-judge Court of Appeals panel to the Arizona Supreme
Court.  Mr. Hagen said the former patients should be allowed to keep
the full awards and judgments because they had paid for the health
coverage that entitled the insurance companies to pay lower rates to
the hospitals.  "The patient owes the hospital nothing beyond that,
other than co-payments and deductibles," he added.

A lawyer for the Samaritan Health System and Banner Health Systems, two
hospital companies sued by the former patients in an attempt to block
the liens, did not immediately return a call for comment.


VITAMIN ANTITRUST: Vitamin Companies Settle Antitrust Suit For $225M
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Six vitamin makers have agreed to settle for $225 million a
consolidated class action brought by the Attorneys General of the
District of Columbia and 22 states against several vitamin
manufacturers. The suit claims that the makers violated state consumer
protection laws by conspiring to fix vitamin prices. The vitamins were
sold to manufacturers that use them in their products.

Named as defendants are:

     (1) Hoffmann-LaRoche of Switzerland,

     (2) BASF AG of Germany,

     (3) Aventis Animal Nutrition, S.A. (formerly Rhone-Poulenc SA) of
         France,

     (4) Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. of Japan,

     (5) Eisai Co. of Japan, and

     (6) Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd. of Japan  

The suit was labeled the "indirect vitamin products" class action
because consumers bought the vitamins indirectly, through the product
manufacturer or distributor, from the vitamin makers. The suit contends
that consumers paid higher prices for these products because the
product manufacturers paid unlawfully high prices for the vitamins
included in the products.

Under the settlement, the State Attorneys General will receive
$107,625,000 on behalf of consumers. The same amount will be made
available to businesses that file proper claims, and a State Economic
Impact Fund of $10 million will be provided for the benefit of
businesses or consumers in the discretion of the Attorneys General.

Due to the high cost of providing relatively small refunds directly to
injured consumers, the consumer recovery will be distributed by the
Attorneys General expressly for the purpose of improving the health and
nutrition of citizens in the participating states or the advancement of
nutritional, dietary, or agricultural science. The money will be used
only to support activities that have not been funded and that, without
the settlement funds, would not be fully capitalized.

The amounts that each state will receive are:

     (i) Arizona - $4,691,000;

    (ii) the District of Columbia - $522,000;

   (iii) Florida - $14,988,000;

    (iv) Hawaii - $1,195,000;

     (v) Idaho - $1,235,000;

    (vi) Illinois - $12,105,000;

   (vii) Kansas - $2,642,000;

  (viii) Maine - $1,245,000;

    (ix) Michigan - $9,865,000;

     (x) Minnesota - $4,751,000;

    (xi) Nevada - $1,758,000;

   (xii) New Mexico - $1,748,000;

  (xiii) New York - $18,264,000;

   (xiv) North Carolina - $7,584,000;

    (xv) North Dakota - $643,000;

   (xvi) Puerto Rico - $3,827,000;

  (xvii) Rhode Island - $994,000;

(xviii) South Dakota - $743,000;

   (xix) Tennessee - $5,455,000;

    (xx) Vermont - $592,000;

   (xxi) Washington - $5,716,000;

  (xxii) West Virginia - $1,818,000; and

(xxiii) Wisconsin - $5,244,000

The state of California has entered into a separate settlement and is
not considered a settling state for the purposes of this class action.
The multi-state settlement will not be effective until it receives
final approval at fairness hearings to be held in each participating
state and the District of Columbia.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Weiss Yourman Files Second Securities Suit in VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman initiated a second securities class action against XO
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:XOXO) and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, on behalf of purchasers and/or owners of XO securities
between April 4,2001 and November 29,2001.  The new lawsuit has added
Forstmann Little & Co. as a defendant and has added a claim under state
law for breach of fiduciary duties.

The suit charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and of breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
alleges that 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 the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices. It also alleges that the defendants are
violating their obligations of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty,
candor and due care to all of the Company's public shareholders.

For more information, contact James E. Tullman, Mark D. Smilow, or
David C. Katz 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


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Savett Frutkin Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan PC filed a securities class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the common stock of XO Communications,
Inc. (NASDAQ:XOXO) between April 4, 2001 and November 29, 2001 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Daniel F. Akerson, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman;

     (2) Nathaniel A. Davis, its Chief Operating Officer; and

     (3) Craig O. McCaw, its founder and controlling shareholder

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, 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 details, contact Robert P. Frutkin or Renee C. Nixon by Phone:
800.993.3233 or by E-mail: mail@savettlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.savettlaw.com/


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated 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. The suit names as defendants 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; 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 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, defendants falsely stated that the Company had sufficient cash
to meet cash requirements into mid-2003 without the need for further
financing.

On November 29, 2001 to the market's surprise, the Company, strapped
for cash, announced a transaction that would virtually eliminate
existing shareholders' equity resulting from the conditional investment
and proposed related restructuring by a buy-out firm and foreign
investor. Upon the announcement, the NASD immediately halted trading in
the Company's stock. The NASD announced that trading in the Company's
securities will remain halted until the Company "has fully satisfied
the NASDAQ's request for additional information."

For more information, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877.935.7400 (Toll Free)
by E-mail: clowther@whhf.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whhf.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  * * *