CAR_Public/011220.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
             Thursday, December 20, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 248

                           Headlines


BAYCOL LITIGATION: Federal Judge Orders Consolidation of Suits in MN
CARRIER1 INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
CORNING INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York
CORNING INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NY
CRACKER BARREL: Incriminating Statements Strengthen Racial Bias Suit   

D'ANGELO SANDWICH: Chain Sued By Customers Over Hepatitis A Outbreak
DIGITAL INSIGHT: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
EMACHINES INC.: State Court Blocks Impending Merger Due To Pending Suit
FORD MOTOR: Settles MI Reverse Discrimination Suit For $10.5 Million
FORD MOTOR: Couple Recovers $10 Million Compensation In Lemon Law Suit

LAJOBI INDUSTRIES: Recalls 400 Cribs Because Of Strangulation Hazard
MASSACHUSETTS: Disabled Children Sue Over Medicaid's Weak Coverage
NORTEL NETWORKS: Denies Allegations in Pending Securities Suits in NY
*NSYNC FANS: IL Court Upholds Suit Filed By Fans Who Missed Concert
PT PLN: Consumers Group Sues Over Economic Losses From Power Blackout

PUBLIX SUPER: Employees Stop Pursuing Suit After Unfavorable Ruling
S1 CORPORATION: GA Court Dismisses Federal Securities Violations Suit
SHOPKO STORES:  Labels Securities Suits "Without Merit" in Wisconsin
STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UNITED STATES: Mexican Trucking Companies File $4B "Bias" Suit

WAL-MART CORPORATION: Settles ADA Violations Suit For $6.8 Million
VAN WAGONER: Ademi O'Reilly Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin


                             *********


BAYCOL LITIGATION: Federal Judge Orders Consolidation of Suits in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Federal Judge Michael J. Davies issued an order this week
headquartering the administration of federal lawsuits filed against
makers of the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol in Minnesota Federal
Court, according to a HarrisMartin Publishing report.

Judge Davis transferred to Minnesota 36 Baycol lawsuits from 11
districts for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
following an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
The decision also stated that more than 90 related court actions
pending in 51 districts, and any other related actions, will be treated
as potential "tag-along" cases and will likely be transferred to
Minnesota.

Baycol is among a rash of drugs that have recently become the subject
of nationwide litigation.  People who took Baycol filed dozens of class
actions, which names, among others, Bayer Corporation and
GlaxoSmithKline as defendants. The majority of suits allege that the
drug causes rhabdomyolysis, a degenerative muscle condition that most
frequently affects the muscle groups of the calves and lower back and
can sometimes lead to failures of the kidneys and other organs. Through
the US Food and Drug Administration, Bayer announced it was withdrawing
Baycol in August.

According to Tuesday's order, all responding parties agreed that
centralization was appropriate, but disagreed on which district should
host the proceedings. Defendant Bayer Corp. suggested the Northern
District of Illinois, the Southern District of Ohio or the Southern
District of Texas. GlaxoSmithKline joined with Bayer in suggesting
Illinois at oral argument.


CARRIER1 INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against purchasers of Carrier1 International S.A.
(NASDAQ:CONE) from February 24, 2000 to December 6, 2001, inclusive
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and its
underwriters.

The suit alleges that the 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 9.375 million
of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of EURO 87
($87.4176) or $17.4835 per ADS.  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 more information, contact Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz
LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 by Phone:
800.575.0735 or by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com


CORNING INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Corning, Inc. (NYSE: GLW) common stock
or zero coupon convertible debentures pursuant to a prospectus dated
November 3, 2000.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
Company's offering of common stock and debentures in November 2000.  

Specifically, the suit alleges that the prospectus was materially false
and misleading, among other reasons, because:

     (1) it stated that demand for the Company's products was robust;

     (2) it failed to disclose that the Company was amassing hundreds
         of millions of dollars of obsolete inventory that would have
         to be written-off; and

     (3) given the foregoing, the projection of 25% earnings growth in
         2001, contained in the prospectus, was lacking in a reasonable
         basis at all times.

In July 2001, Corning announced it was taking a $5.1 billion charge
primarily related to two recent acquisitions, that it would also write-
off $300 million in excess and obsolete inventory, and that it would
cut 1,000 jobs and close three plants. In July 2001, the Company
reported a massive second-quarter loss of $4.76 billion, or $5.13 per
share.  The Company's shares closed that day at $13.77, down 80% from
the offering price.

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


CORNING INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Corning, Inc. (NYSE:
GLW) pursuant to the November 2, 2000 prospectus.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
Company's offering of common stock and debentures in November 2000.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus was materially
false and misleading, among other reasons, because:

     (1) it stated that demand for the Company's products was robust;

     (2) it omitted to disclose that the Company was amassing hundreds
         of millions of dollars of obsolete inventory that would have
         to be written off; and

     (3) given the foregoing, the projection of 25% earnings growth in
         2001, contained in the prospectus, was lacking in a reasonable
         basis at all times.

In July 2001, Corning announced it was taking a $5.1 billion charge
primarily related to two recent acquisitions, that it would also write-
off $300 million in excess and obsolete inventory, and that it would
cut 1,000 jobs and close three plants. The Company reported a massive
second-quarter loss of $4.76 billion, or $5.13 per share. It's shares
closed that day at $13.77, down 80% from the offering price.

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


CRACKER BARREL: Incriminating Statements Strengthen Racial Bias Suit   
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The $100 million racial discrimination class action against the Cracker
Barrel restaurant chain pending in Rome, Georgia seems to be gaining
momentum.  Civil rights law firm Gordon Silberman Wiggins and Childs
has documented testimony regarding alleged racism in 175 cities.  The
suit is the largest civil-rights lawsuit against a restaurant since
Denny's 1994 settlement of a $46 million discrimination lawsuit.

The suit cites many examples of alleged discrimination.  One such
allegation states that black customers, at a Grand Rapids-area Cracker
Barrel restaurant, were subjected to "racially derogatory remarks."

Plaintiffs' attorney David Sanford said, "The descriptions of the
treatment endured by African-American customers in these restaurants is
appalling.We have enough evidence right now to suggest that Cracker
Barrel, to the very highest level, is responsible."  

Some examples of the growing number of allegations made by some former
employees in Michigan:

     (1) Black customers in Saginaw were segregated;

     (2) White employees refused to serve black customers in Saginaw;

     (3) Managers refused to meet with black customers or dismissed
         their complaints in Saginaw and Port Huron;

     (4) Employees made racial comments in Saginaw, Roseville and
         Lansing;

     (5) White customers were given preferential treatment in Saginaw,
         Stevensville, Roseville, Port Huron and Lansing;

     (6) Black customers had to wait longer than white customers for
         tables in Roseville and Port Huron.

Judith Robertson, who is white, responded to complaints made by
customers on the company's hot line.  In a statement, she said that the
company received 300 calls a month claiming discrimination against
minority customers.  Much of the lawsuit focuses on statements of black
customers recounting how they were forced to wait while white customers
were promptly seated.

Company Chief Executive Donald M. Turner says the charges are false and  
Cracker Barrel will fight them all the way to court "if it comes to
that."

Another class action lawsuit, also filed in Rome, Georgia, by Gordon,
Silberman, claims blacks were not treated fairly in hiring, promotions
and pay.


D'ANGELO SANDWICH: Chain Sued By Customers Over Hepatitis A Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed recently, in Fall River Superior Court
in Massachusetts, against the D'Angelo Sandwich Shop chain, on behalf
of more than 1,700 people who were immunized during a regional outbreak
of hepatitis A last month.  Massachussetts epidemologists concluded
that each of these people might have been exposed to the uncomfortable,
but rarely fatal liver condition, The Providence Journal recently
reported.

Steven P. Sabra, the Somerset lawyer who filed the lawsuit, explained
that this potential exposure required painful, humiliating and often
inconvenient injections of a special virus-killing serum.   "I think
what's happened at D'Angelo's has had a tremendous effect on our local
community here," Mr. Sabra said.   

Frank R. Lucca, 48, of Swansea, Massachusetts, the named lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit, charges that a D'Angelo food handler transmitted the
virus to at least 34 people who fell sick after they ate food from the
local franchise in a plaza off Route 6.  Mr. Lucca needed the injection
because his wife, Kristine Lucca, 49, caught the virus after eating at
the restaurant chain.

Mr. Sabra said that the lawsuit does not specify the amount of money
the plaintiffs are seeking from the sandwich chain, but the lawyer said
that he wants to obtain compensation for each person.   The lawsuit
says that the damages incurred by the plaintiffs include:

     (1) the "fear of contracting the illness;"

     (2) the "shame and humiliation of the injection;" and

     (3) the "pain and economic loss" associated directly with the
         immunization process.  

"The issue here would be what amount would fairly compensate these
people for having to get a shot in the butt as a result of this
hepatitis A," Mr. Sabra said.  He added that several local boards of
health also should be compensated for their related expenses.

A total of 51 people came down with symptoms from the virus, according
to figures provided by state health officials in both Massachusetts and
Rhode Island.  Anyone who had close personal contact with these people
was urged to have a shot of immunoglobulin serum within two weeks of
the exposure.  More than 1,700 people received the shot during a two-
day clinic at Charlton Memorial Hospital.


DIGITAL INSIGHT: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Digital Insight Corporation (NASDAQ: DGIN) from
September 30,1999 to December 6,2000, inclusive.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In September 1999, the
Company commenced an initial public offering of 3,500,000 of its shares
of common stock at an offering price of $15 per share.  In connection
therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

The 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 further details, contact Stull, Stull & Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY, 10017 by Phone: 310.209.2468 by Fax: 310.209.2087
or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


EMACHINES INC.: State Court Blocks Impending Merger Due To Pending Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Jefferson County (172nd Judicial District)
blocked the impending merger between computer manufacturer eMachines,
Inc. and EM Holdings, Inc. due to the pending class action against
eMachines, Inc., seeking recovery for alleged defects relating to the
floppy disk controllers contained in certain of the Company's
computers.

The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and an order
setting December 31, 2001 hearing regarding a preliminary injunction
against the merger. The order states that Intervenor Plaintiff John
Hock and similarly situated parties would be irreparably injured upon
the merger of the two Companies because eMachines would be left with
insufficient funds to satisfy the alleged claims of the plaintiffs in
the suit.

By issuing the order, the Court restrained eMachines, including its
officers and directors from "merging with EM Holdings, Inc. and from
using the assets of eMachines to pay or satisfy any debts or
obligations of another person, including any shareholder or
corporation who acquires its stock or whose stock it acquires or who is
part of or merges with eMachines or who is in any way related to the
transaction with EM Holdings, Inc."

The Court also ordered the Intervenor plaintiff to post a bond in the
amount of $5,000.00. The temporary restraining order expires on
December 28, 2001.

eMachines is in the process of reviewing alternatives relating to an
appeal or other review of the order.  EM Holdings' President, Lap Shun
(John) Hui, said "EM Holdings remains committed to the terms of the
transaction set forth in our tender offer. We believe the offer is fair
to all shareholders and is in the best interest of eMachines and its
customers. We intend to vigorously contest the order."


FORD MOTOR: Settles MI Reverse Discrimination Suit For $10.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ford Motor Company agreed to settle for $10.5 million, two class
action suits accusing the automobile giant of discriminating against
older, white men in the name of diversity in their performance
evaluation system, according to an Associated Press report.

The suits were commenced early this year in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging the Company
committed "reverse race, reverse gender and age discrimination."

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

Under the settlement, roughly 620 current and former employees could
receive money, plaintiffs' attorneys said. Some will get up to
$100,000, minus attorney fees, depending on how long they were employed
and other factors.

Ford admits no liability in the settlement.  Spokesman Joe Laymon said,
"The company is pleased to have resolved this difficult situation with
our employees and is eager to put it behind."  Plaintiff Craig Toepfer,
who retired from Ford in August, said he was satisfied with the
settlement but added, "It really doesn't make up for the things that
really should have happened for us."

Both sides are due in court Thursday, where a judge is expected to give
preliminary approval.


FORD MOTOR: Couple Recovers $10 Million Compensation In Lemon Law Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fresno County Superior Court ruled in favor of a couple who sued
Ford Motor Company under California's Lemon Law recently, awarding them
$10 million in punitive damages, the Associated Press reports.  

The jury ruled in favor of Clovis couple Greg and Jo Ann Johnson,
deciding that the Company had violated the Lemon Law by taking back
defective vehicles from dissatisfied customers and reselling them
without notifying the next buyer of the vehicle's history. "The point
of the entire lawsuit was to try to change Ford's practices of
reselling alleged lemons or cars that owners claimed were
lemons, without disclosing the history," said William Krieg, the
Johnsons' lawyer.

The original owner of the Johnsons' Ford Taurus bought the new car in
1997, but after running into problems with the car's transmission, he
returned it in exchange for a $1,500 credit toward another purchase.  
The dealership, Decker Ford in Fresno County, resold the car to the
Johnsons in 1998, according to court documents.  Only after
encountering several problems with the car's transmission, including
two replacements, did Greg Johnson learn of the vehicle's history of
repairs.

Mr. Krieg said the lawyers for both sides would be returning to court
to discuss expanding the lawsuit into a class action.  He wants
restitution for anyone who bought a vehicle that had previously been
returned in exchange for an "Owner Appreciation Certificate."  He said
that the Company's policy simply entices consumers not to report the
bad car as a lemon.
Calls to the Company and its lawyers were not immediately returned,
according to an Associated Press report.


LAJOBI INDUSTRIES: Recalls 400 Cribs Because Of Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LaJobi Industries is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 400 "Molly" and
"Betsy" style wooden cribs.  These cribs have cut-outs in the end
panels that allow young children to get their heads entrapped,
resulting in strangulation. The cribs fail to meet CPSC standards.

The Company has not received any reports of injuries involving these
cribs but in the past there have been deaths reported in other cribs
with end panel cut-outs. This recall is being conducted to prevent the
possibility of injury.

Both cribs have openings on each end panel.  The end panels on the
"Molly" style cribs are made of solid wood with openings on both sides.
The end panels on the "Betsy" style cribs are constructed with wood
slats.  The model numbers are printed inside the headboard at the
bottom.  The numbers are:

     (1) Molly 0101327 02 (Natural),

     (2) Molly 0101327 11 (Antique Green),

     (3) Molly 0101327 12 (Antique White),

     (4) Betsy 0101257 02 (Natural),

     (5) Betsy 0101257 11 (Antique Green),

     (6) Betsy 0101257 12 (Antique White)

Juvenile specialty stores nationwide sold the cribs between May 2000
through September 2001 for about $700 for the Molly model and $650
for the Betsy model.

For further details, contact the Company by Phone: 888.266.2848
(between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday) or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.bonavita-cribs.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Disabled Children Sue Over Medicaid's Weak Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Massachusetts faces a class action filed in Boston Federal
Court by five children with severe disabilities accusing the state of
abandoning its obligation to 500 children and young adults who are
entitled to private duty nurses under Medicaid.

The suit alleges that MassHealth, the state agency that administers the
program for children who qualify for home nursing care under Medicaid,
has made it impossible for the children and others like them to get
help because it doesn't pay competitive nursing wages or overtime.
The suit, which names as defendants acting Governor Jane Swift and
other administration officials, cites a survey conducted last year by
the state Department of Public Health indicated that 20 to 30 percent
of the nursing shifts needed by the families of severely disabled
children went unfilled.

Bethany Sabbag, one of the plaintiffs, couldn't find enough nurses to
come to her Medford home next week, meaning a sleepless holiday for her
mother, Cindy Sabbag, who is legally blind, works part time and lives
alone with her daughter. She will have to tend her daughter's feeding
tubes and various medication pumps around the clock for six of the
seven days next week. Mrs. Sabbag told the Boston Globe, "I'm very able
to do Bethany's care and willing to do it, but she needs 24-hour
care.The stress comes from getting tired and the fear of making a
mistake."

Attorney for the plaintiffs Tim Sindelar asserts, "There's no question
about these children being eligible for this service.But then there is
an inability to meet that need because the system doesn't work well
enough."

Sarah Barth, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance,
declined to comment on pending litigation, but provided a letter from
her office that indicated MassHealth had increased rates for private
duty nurses by 13 percent last December. However, officials from two
agencies contracted by the state to provide home care nurses to the
families of severely disabled children said the increase is inadequate.

MassHealth mandates that private duty nurses hired to care for severely
disabled children under the Medicaid program receive a minimum of
$24.92 per hour, which includes the cost of providing health benefits
and liability insurance.   The state reimburses the nursing service
agencies at a rate of $34.92 an hour to cover both wages and benefits,
according to officials, according to a Boston Globe report.

Bernadette Bosco, area Vice President of Gentiva Health Services, which
provides nurses to some of the families that are suing the state, said
the company pays nurses in the Boston area $21 an hour for days; $22.50
for nights; and $23 an hour for weekends, plus benefits. Hospitals in
the area pay between $26 and $35 an hour, she said. She adds, "Medicaid
has said they don't think throwing money at the problem is a solution.I
say it will help because there are nurses who would prefer to take care
of patients in their homes, but they have to put bread on their table."

David Schildmeier, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Nurses
Association, said legislation was filed earlier this year that would
authorize the state to hire nurses directly to provide home care to
severely disabled children. The Joint Committee on Human Services and
Elderly Affairs is currently studying the bill.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Denies Allegations in Pending Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation faces several class actions in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
that the Brampton, Ontario-based Company issued "a series of false and
misleading statements and engaged in a variety of accounting
manipulations" that overstated the company's financial results in the
final two quarters of fiscal 2000, The Globe and Mail, Canada recently
reported.  The plaintiffs say they are acting on behalf of themselves
and anybody who was a Company shareholder between October 24, 2000 and
February 15, 2001.  

The suits allege that Nortel's behavior was designed to prop up its
share price, as the critical US market for its telecommunications
equipment and its key competitors, Cisco Systems Inc. and Lucent
Technologies Inc., showed obvious signs of weakness.  That share price,
the plaintiffs argue, was critical to maintaining the Company's ability
to make acquisitions with its stock. The suit contends, "These positive
statements caused Nortel's stock price to rise to, and remain at,
artificially inflated levels so that Nortel could continue, for so long
as possible, its strategy of acquiring other Internet- or
telecommunications-related companies, using its share price as a
takeover currency."

Company spokeswoman Tina Warren said none of the allegations has been
proved, and they are without foundation, "We believe the case
is without merit, and we will vigorously defend ourselves."

A US analyst said the class action suit has little or no effect on his
analysis of the Company's prospects.  "Generally, I don't take a lot of
those too seriously," said Steve Kamman, a technology analyst at CIBC
World Markets in New York.  Class-action suits are usually designed
only to "extort" money from the companies, he added.

The Company, like its competitors, has had a miserable year as key
customers have slashed their capital spending and many dot-coms have
closed their doors.  The result has been that Canada's largest
technology company has, this year, fired more than half of its
employees, vacated more than 200 buildings and reduced its product
line.


*NSYNC FANS: IL Court Upholds Suit Filed By Fans Who Missed Concert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois has ruled in favor of *NSYNC
fans who missed most, if not all, of the band's concert last year in
Joliet, Illinois.  The ruling may prove significant for concertgoers
who have trouble accessing venues without adequate traffic control and
parking.

The suit was brought by a Northbrook, Illinois resident, asserting a
breach of contract claim brought last year by concertgoers who could
not access the venue for an August 1, 2000, performance of *NSYNC at
the Route 66 Raceway in Joliet, Illinois.  The plaintiff claims that it
took her more than 5 hours to reach the venue, with her 11-year old
daughter and friends in tow, because the site was ill-equipped to
handle the crowd estimated at 60,000.

Specifically, she claims that unpaved parking lots, inadequate traffic
control, narrow access roads and the venue's design caused her, and
thousands of other fans, to miss most or all of *NSYNC's performance.
Law enforcement personnel acknowledged that it took more than three
hours just for patrons to get out of the Route 66 facility after the
show was over.

In a decision that could enable patrons of concerts and sporting events
to sue promoters, venues and event organizers for similar problems,
Judge Lester D. Foreman ruled that the obligation of the ticket seller
does not end at the ticket window, rejecting the notion that a ticket
is merely a "claim check" to a seat, noting that the event's organizers
must be fair to fans who it knows may have trouble reaching the venue.
Judge Foreman ruled that concerts are not desert island displays to
which patrons are required to traverse inordinate courses irrespective
of impediments in order to get what the ticket purportedly offers.

The Court placed the obligation on organizers to evaluate the
feasibility of a large event in relation to the performance site and
available accommodations.  The seller and those associated with the
seller are required to investigate and evaluate the location of the
performance site in relation to its position in consideration of the
massive attendees, the vastness of their number, and the accommodations
being provided both inside and outside the venue.

The court concluded that there is a contractual obligation on the part
of the ticket seller to make any information it may have regarding
possible difficulty accessing the venue available to the purchaser.

The plaintiff's attorney, Clinton Krislov, said, "Rock fans have a
right to be treated fairly and decently, with reasonable access so they
can enjoy the concerts they're charged so much for."

For more information, contact Clinton A. Krislov of Krislov &
Associates, Ltd. by Phone: 1.312.606.0500 by Fax: 1.312.606.0207 or by
E-mail: mail@krislovlaw.com


PT PLN: Consumers Group Sues Over Economic Losses From Power Blackout
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The local chapter of the Foundation of Indonesian Consumers and 69
lawyers have recently filed a class action lawsuit against the PT PLN
Electric Company in Kupang District Court over losses incurred because
of the blackout, according to the Jakarta Post. Nixon Bunga, Chair of
the legal team that submitted the suit, asserts "PLN must pay
compensation for any material losses local consumers have suffered from
the blackout." said Nixon Bunga, chair of the legal team that submitted
the lawsuit.  

The losses have been many and of various kinds. For example, Muslims
and Christians in Kupang and South Timor Tengah will probably not be
able to celebrate Idul Fitri and Christmas because the state-owned
electricity company has yet to restore power in the two regencies.   A
local Muslim resident, Abdul Harris, voiced his dismay that Muslims
could not participate in religious gatherings and prayers in their
mosques because of power shortage.

Eris MT Gultom, Chief of the Company's local office, said the rotating
blackout would continue until next June if the power generators could
not be repaired by January.  "PLN management apologizes to all people
in the two regencies because of the inconveniences triggered by the
blackout," he said, expressing regret that the situation will affect
people during the holiday season.   All sub-districts in the two
regencies and Kpang city have been supplied electricity on an
alternating basis since August.

The Company's responsibility to compensate the citizenry for their
losses and discomforts are being expressed.  Abdul Harris, a local
Muslim resident, said that "It is not enough for PLN to apologize.  The
company should compensate their consumers if it fails to complete the
repair work as soon as possible." Gulielmus Beribe, a legislator for
the local chapter of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
Perjuangan) asserts "PLN should be held responsible for material losses
caused by the blackout."


PUBLIX SUPER: Employees Stop Pursuing Suit After Unfavorable Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Hispanic employees have stopped pursuing their class action
discrimination suit pending in the US District Court in Miami against
Publix Super Markets, the Associated Press recently reported.  The
plaintiffs, employees of the Company's Miami warehouse, claimed that
they were passed up for promotions because they are Hispanic and filed
the suit to represent all Hispanic employees at the Company's
warehouses in Florida and Georgia.

Judge Patricia Seitz, in October, dismissed the plaintiffs' class-
action claims, ruling that the employees had not provided enough
evidence that the Company had uniformly discriminated against Hispanic
employees.  Judge Seitz gave the employees time to change the lawsuit
and apply again for class-action status.  

However, the judge's criticism was so strong that the plaintiffs
decided to give up, said Doug Lyons, a lawyer for the six employees.  
Three of the plaintiffs are suing the Company individually.

A Company spokesman declined comment Monday, citing the company's
policy of not answering questions about ongoing litigation, according
to an Associated Press report.


S1 CORPORATION: GA Court Dismisses Federal Securities Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
S1 Corporation (NASDAQ: SONE) prevailed as the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed a securities class
action filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of S1
Corporation (NASDAQ:SONE) between November 2, 1999 and May 2, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit charges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
during the class period concerning, among other things, the Company's
acquisitions of FICS, Edify, and VerticalOne.

Defendants are alleged to have misled investors by misrepresenting that
the new acquisitions would "complement S1's product strategy."  As a
result of these misrepresentations, shareholders claim, the Company's
stock price was artificially inflated during the class period. The day
after the truth was finally revealed, the stock dropped more than
$17.87, to close at $41.50, less than one-third of the class period
high of $133.375 per share.

CEO Jaime Ellertson hailed the decision, saying in a press statement,
"We are pleased with the dismissal of the class action suit. Throughout
the process, we have remained focused on the many business
opportunities of the emerging Enterprise eFinance market place, and we
will continue to execute on our strategies that are in the best
interest of our shareholders, employees and customers."

The Company provides more than 2,600 banks, credit unions, insurance
providers, and investment firms enterprise software solutions that turn
customer interactions into profits.


SHOPKO STORES:  Labels Securities Suits "Without Merit" in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shopko Stores, Inc. faces several securities suits pending since
October 2001 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on behalf of Robert Farer, an alleged shareholder
of the Company and other purchasers of Company securities. The claims
are lodged against the Company and William J. Podany, the President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, for alleged violations of
federal securities laws.

The suits allege that the Company and Mr. Podany made various
misrepresentations and omissions in public disclosures concerning the
Company between March 9, 2000 and November 9, 2000. Specifically, it is
alleged that the Company failed to disclose that it was experiencing
significant shipping and inventory control problems at the Pamida
division Lebanon, Indiana distribution facility.

The complaints request, among other things, that the court declare that
the action is a proper class action and award compensatory monetary
damages, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company believes the actions to be totally without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this matter. The Company however cannot
ensure a positive outcome with regard to the outcome of the actions.



STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC filed a securities class action on behalf of an
investor against StarMedia Network, Inc. (NASDAQ:STRME) and its
principal officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased StarMedia stock from April 11, 2000 through
November 19, 2001.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between April 11, 2000 and November 19, 2001 concerning the
Company's financial performance.

The suit further alleges that the Company reported artificially
inflated financial results in press releases and filings made with the
SEC by improperly recognizing revenue in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Specifically, the suit alleges
that two of the Company's primary subsidiaries, AdNet S.A. de C.V. and
StarMedia Mexico, S.A. de C.V, had engaged in improper accounting
practices which had the effect of materially overstating the Company's
reported revenues and earnings by at least $10 million.

On November 19, 2001, as alleged in the complaint, the Company issued a
press release announcing that based on the "preliminary" results of an
internal investigation into its accounting practices, it expects to
restate its financial statements for fiscal year 2000 and the first two
quarters of 2001 and that those financial statements should not be
relied upon. The Company further reported that its Chief Financial
Officer had "resigned."

Immediately following the announcement of the restatement, the NASDAQ
Stock Market halted trading in Company stock, pending the receipt of
additional information from the Company. The Company's stock last
traded at $0.38 per share, which is 98.5% less than the Class Period
high of $25.50, reached on April 11, 2000.

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



UNITED STATES: Mexican Trucking Companies File $4B "Bias" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States government faces a $4 billion class action filed by
eleven Mexican trucking companies in the United States District Court
in Brownsville, Texas, alleging that the government illegally denied
them access to US markets, conflicting with the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The suit, filed on behalf of at least 185 Mexican trucking concerns,
asserts that federal agencies, including the Department of
Transportation, violated NAFTA by denying them permits to operate
within the US interior.  The suit further alleges that the government
discriminated against Mexican nationals by denying Mexican truckers the
ability to invest in, own or control trucking companies based in the
United States and allowing Canadian firms more access than Mexican
companies.

The companies that filed the suit:

     (1) Guillermo Berriochoa Lopez,

     (2) Transportes Intermex, S.A de C.V.,

     (3) S'Antonio Transportes, S.A. de C.V.,

     (4) Jose Silvino Magana Lopez,

     (5) Jose Alfredo Magana Lopez,

     (6) Miguel Angel De La Rosa Sanchez,

     (7) Servicio Tecnico Automotriz Perisur, S.A. de C.V.,

     (8) Tomas De La Rosa Parra,

     (9) Ernesto Vallet Haces,

    (10) Max E. Barton, and

    (11) Carlos Berriochoa

Attorney for the plaintiffs Kent M. Henderson told the Associated Press
in an interview, "It's inconsistent with NAFTA, and additionally,
they've continued to use an application that requires the applicant to
state whether he is of Mexican national origin, and those applications
for companies of Mexican national origin have never been acted on."
He also added that the suit was filed in Brownsville because it is the
source of much of the truck traffic between United States and Mexico.  
The suit asserts business and profits lost since 1995.

Fernando Chavez, eldest son of the late labor leader Cesar Chavez, is
the lead attorney for the lawsuit. He also told the AP that he believes
".NAFTA was implemented with the intent of opening up commerce and
trade between the three nations.There is no problem when trade is
coming back and forth across the border. What causes the problem is
when an individual who's Mexican is bringing it across."

According to the Associated Press report, a spokesman for the
Transportation Department made no immediate comment.  Rob Black,
spokesman for the Teamsters union, which represents more than 120,000
U.S. truck drivers, called the suit "baseless," saying Canada has
infrastructure in place to guarantee trucks' safety while Mexico does
not.

Part of the NAFTA agreement allowed trucks to travel first throughout
Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas by December 1995 and
throughout the United States by January 2000.  Then President Bill
Clinton allowed Canadian trucks to enter the country, but delayed the
implementation of the agreement for Mexican trucks.  A compromise was
approved earlier this month that will require US inspectors to conduct
safety examinations of Mexican trucking companies, their vehicles, and
to verify driver's licenses.  However, implementing those rules is
expected to take months.


WAL-MART CORPORATION: Settles ADA Violations Suit For $6.8 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail giant Wal-mart Corporation forged an agreement to settle for
$6.8 million the class action brought by the US Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Sacramento Federal Court alleging
unfair treatment of disabled employees and job applicants.  The
agreement sets the stage for resolution of 12 other EEOC lawsuits
against the Company in 11 states.

The settlement, according to the Sacramento Bee, is one of the most
sweeping settlements between the government and a corporation under the
Americans With Disabilities Act.  In addition to the payments, the
Company will also revise its policies regarding people with
disabilities.

The suit focused on the alleged unlawful medical inquiries directed at
people seeking jobs with the Company. The EEOC contends that a form
with disability-related questions was "an illegal screening device.not
established to be.required by business necessity."  Companies are
prohibited by the ADA from asking such questions and conducting medical
examinations before making a conditional job offer.

At a brief hearing Monday in Sacramento, EEOC attorney Mary Jo O'Neill
told US District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. that Wal-Mart will pay
$3.8 million to 21 individuals subjected to disability discrimination.
The consent decree in Sacramento accounts for three of those people,
and 18 others are covered by EEOC suits in another district of
California, and in Ohio, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois,
New York, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri and Texas.

Ms. O'Neill said that a national fund will be set up with the remaining
$3 million, out of which will come payments to people who were victims
of the illegal screening. Those same people will be given preferential
treatment in hiring by Wal-Mart. Potential claimants will be notified
through postings at Wal-Mart facilities and on the Internet, and via
advertisements in three national magazines and 50 metropolitan
newspapers, including The Bee. "Wal-Mart's willingness to enter into
this global settlement, which includes significant nationwide training
on the ADA and job offers, clearly demonstrates the company's
commitment to future compliance with the act," O'Neill said after the
hearing. Wal-Mart had no comment, according to the report.


VAN WAGONER: Ademi O'Reilly Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of shares of the Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund
(Nasdaq:VWEGX) between April 28, 2000 and June 30, 2001, inclusive in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin against
the Company and defendants:

     (1) Van Wagoner Capital Management, Inc.,

     (2) Sunstone Financial Group, Inc.,

     (3) Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund,

     (4) Garrett R. Van Wagoner,

     (5) Larry P. Arnold, and

     (6) Robert S. Colman

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and
misleading registration statements and prospectuses. As alleged in the
Complaint, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Fund's net asset value (NAV) and performance. These
statements were materially false and misleading because:

     (i) the NAV of the Fund was materially overstated as the Fund had
         overvalued a material portion of their holdings of certain
         private placement investments;

    (ii) the Fund's performance was materially overstated as those
         figures were based on the Fund's NAV, which figures were
         materially overstated because the Fund had materially
         overstated NAV; and

   (iii) the risk of investing in the Fund was materially understated
         as the Fund had failed to disclose the true risk attendant to
         its portfolio securities and specifically the private
         placement investments.

Accordingly, defendants' statements about the risks associated with
investing in the Fund were not meaningful because they failed to advise
investors that it was materially overstating its NAV.

On June 30, 2001, defendants' gross overvaluation of the private
placement investments was disclosed when defendants revalued nine such
private placement investments originally valued at $28.6 million on
December 31, 2000 to a total of $9.00 and marked down an additional 2
holdings by precisely 50% or 75%. During the class period, the Fund's
value decreased by approximately 75%.

For further details, contact Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP by Phone:
866.264.3995 (toll-free) by Fax: 414.482.8001 or by E-mail:
vanwagoner@ademilaw.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  * * *