CAR_Public/011221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Friday, December 21, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 249

                          Headlines


AARON BROTHERS: Ex-Employees' Overtime Pay Suit Nears Motion Deadline
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Berman DeValerio Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline
CENTRA SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DELIA*S INC.: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
DELIA*S INC.: Awaits Certification of Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY

DIVING UNLIMITED: Recalls 3,500 Diving Valves For Potential Injury
DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
ENRON CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
EXTENSITY INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Dragging Securities Suit in NY "Without Merit"

GAME TRACKER: Recalls 25T Climbing Sticks, Steps After Injury Reports
JO-ANN STORES: Discovery Phase Drags On In CA Overtime Pay Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Court Approves $3.2M Settlement In CA Overtime Suit
NBTY INC.: Securities Suits' Dismissal Decisions Pending In NY, FL
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL

OPTICAL CABLE: Federman Sherwood Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. VA
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Keller Rohrback Considers Possible ERISA Suit
RESONATE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SRI SURGICAL: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in M.D. FL
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

TOYS R US: Consumers Sue For Unauthorized Use of Private Information
UNION DISCORD: Home-Care Workers Say State, Union Laws Unconstitutional
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA

*Class Actions Lawsuits Find Accepting Home in Madison County, Illinois


                            *********


AARON BROTHERS: Ex-Employees' Overtime Pay Suit Nears Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California has set January 31,
2002 as the deadline by which time plaintiffs in the overtime pay class
action against retailer Aaron Brothers, Inc must either file a motion
for class certification or file a motion for preliminary approval of
any settlement which may be agreed to by the parties involved in the
suit.

Suzanne Collins, a former assistant manager of the Company's retail
stores, filed a class action in April 1999 against the Company on
behalf of its former store managers, assistant store managers, and
managers-in-training. The suit alleges that the Company violated
various California laws by erroneously treating its store managers,
assistant store managers, and managers-in-training as "exempt"
employees who are not entitled to overtime compensation.  Based on
these allegations, the suit asserts that the Company:

     (1) violated various California Labor Codes;

     (2) violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
         Professions Code; and

     (3) engaged in conversion.

In June 2001, Ms. Collins amended the suit to expand the purported
class to:

     (i) include all current salaried store managers, assistant store
         managers, and managers-in-training of the Company based in
         California;

    (ii) add a new plaintiff as a class representative; and

   (iii) add two additional causes of action for injunctive and
         declaratory relief.

Trial in the suit has yet to be scheduled.  The Company believes it
will prevail in the suit, but cannot give assurance that they will be
successful in defending the suit or that the final resolution of the
suit will not materially affect future operating results.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Berman DeValerio Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo announced that
investors in Apropos Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:APRS) have until the end
of the month to submit a lead-plaintiff petition in a lawsuit tied to
the company's initial public offering. The class action is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of all investors who bought Apropos stock in its February 17, 2000
public offering or on the open market through May 15, 2000.

According to the complaint, the prospectus for the Company's February
17, 2000 offering falsely stated that co-founders Patrick K. Brady and
William W. Bach were active members of its executive management team
when they had stopped playing important roles within the company months
before the prospectus was issued. Named as defendants are the company,
its top directors and the underwriters who helped take it public.

The prospectus listed Mr. Brady as Chief Technology Officer and Mr.
Bach as Vice President of technology. However, company President and
CEO Kevin G. Kerns had effectively ousted Mr. Brady after a power
struggle that culminated in July 1999. Though Mr. Brady maintained his
title, he no longer had a company office or any employees who reported
to him. Similarly, Mr. Kerns stripped Mr. Bach of his executive
managerial responsibilities and involvement in shaping the company's
core technology.

Mr. Kerns, who became the de-facto CTO, attempted to hire a replacement
for Brady before the prospectus was issued, but was unsuccessful. So,
Mr. Brady and Mr. Bach were listed in the prospectus as technology
officers. The Company issued nearly 4 million shares of common stock at
$22 per share to thousands of investors based on offering materials
that falsely stated that the founders who designed its key
technological product were managing the company.

"As a technology company whose business plan and future success
depended heavily on proprietary technology, investors considered it
important that the Apropos founders, the people who developed and
patented that proprietary technology, still believed in the company,
its business and its technology," the complaint says. "Plaintiffs and
the other class members have lost tens of millions of dollars as a
result of these material misrepresentations and omissions in the
prospectus."

The December 31, 2001 lead plaintiff deadline affects only those
investors who wish the court to consider them as a potential lead
plaintiff.

For more information, contact Steven D. Morris or Michael G. Lange by
Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800.516.9926 by E-
mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bermanesq.com.


CENTRA SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. 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 on behalf of purchasers of Centra Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CTRA) from February 3,2000 to December 6,2000.

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 5,000,000 of its shares
of common stock, at an offering price of $14 per share.  In connection
therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the 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 details, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP
By Mail: 270 Madision Avenue, New York NY 10016 by Phone: 800.575.0735
by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com



DELIA*S INC.: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
dELiA*s Inc. asked the Delaware Chancery Court to dismiss a
consolidated securities suit filed on behalf of stockholders of iTurf
Inc., a partly-owned subsidiary of the Company at the time against:

     (1) iTurf Inc.,

     (2) dELiA*s Inc. and

     (3) each of iTurf's directors.

The consolidated suit arose from three suits commenced in August 2000
challenging the Company's purchase of the remaining non-Company owned
shares of iTurf.  The suits allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to iTurf's public stockholders and that the merger
exchange ratio was unfair to iTurf's public stockholders.

The actions were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed early
this year.  The Company later filed a motion to dismiss the suit in
April 2001.

The Company labeled the suit "without substantial merit" and stated its
intent to vigorously contest the consolidated suit in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  However, the Company qualified
that they could not predict the outcome of any litigation or whether
the resolution of the litigation could have a material adverse effect
on its business or financial position.



DELIA*S INC.: Awaits Certification of Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to certify a consolidated securities suit against dELiA*s Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors, and one former officer of a
subsidiary.

The consolidated suits arose from two suits commenced in June 1999 on
behalf of the purchasers of our securities during the period January
20, 1998 through September 10, 1998. The suit generally alleges that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misstatements and by
failing to disclose allegedly material information regarding trends in
the Company's business. The suit also alleges that the individual
defendants are liable for those violations under Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act.

In April 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit,
which the court denied in March 2001.  The Company said in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to vigorously
defend against the suit. In the same disclosure, the Company expressed
confidence that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a
material adverse effect on its business.




DIVING UNLIMITED: Recalls 3,500 Diving Valves For Potential Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diving Unlimited International Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling 3,500
Overpressure Valves (OPV) used with Buoyancy Control Systems. The
overpressure valve can stick in the open position, posing a drowning
hazard to divers.  The Company has received two reports of the valves
sticking open. No injuries have been reported.

These Buoyancy Control Systems come in two versions, a jacket style and
a wings style.  The overpressure valve is installed on these units. It
is very difficult to distinguish the defective overpressure valves from
those not affected. Therefore, all overpressure valves with red pulls
are included in this recall.  The jacket model has the Company logo
printed on the jacket pocket, epaulette, and weight pockets.  The wings
model has the Company logo printed on the epaulette and weight pockets.
The letters "DUI" are printed on the permanent hang tags found on the
Buoyancy Control System. Authorized dealers nationwide sold these
Buoyancy Control Systems from November 1997 through November 2001 for
about $590.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800.325.8439
between 8 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.DUI-Online.com.


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

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

The suit alleges that the statements in the prospectus regarding the
Company's international sales and the accompanying risk disclosures
regarding its ability to generate such growth were false and misleading
and contained material omissions when made. In actuality, by the time
of the IPO, the Company had known that its stock price of $17 reflected
the defendants' contention that it would achieve its 4th Quarter 2001
earnings estimates.

Prior to the IPO, defendants allegedly knew that the Company would not
achieve its 4th quarter earnings estimates. Moreover, this information
was disclosed to certain of the underwriting defendants' sales people
who, as a result of the change in the Company's 4th quarter
projections, declined to support or otherwise purchase the shares in
the "after market."

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

On December 12, 2001, the Company filed an S-1 registration statement
that disclosed the existence of the complaint. Despite the material
allegations in the complaint, the defendants claimed in the S-1 that
the "allegations lack merit." Counsel for plaintiff and the putative
class intend to pursue swift and vigorous recovery of money lost as the
result of defendants' actions and, in the alternative, the recision of
the purchases of the Company's shares.

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


ENRON CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber and Urmy LLP initiated a securities fraud class action on
behalf of purchasers of 7% Exchangeable Notes due July 31, 2002 issued
by Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas. The suit, which is believed to be the
first action filed on behalf of purchasers of the notes, seeks class
action status on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of the
notes during the period from the initial public offering of the notes
on August 17, 1999 to the present. The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Banc of America Securities LLC,

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (4) Arthur Andersen LLP,

     (5) Kenneth L. Lay,

     (6) Andrew S. Fastow,

     (7) Jeffrey K. Skilling and

     (8) Richard A. Causey

The suit alleges that the defendants violated sections 11 and 12(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933, which makes the named defendants strictly
liable for any materially false or misleading statement or omissions in
the registration statement or prospectus for the Notes. The suit also
alleges claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the suit
alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the notes
were false and misleading in that the Company's financial statements
included in the prospectus are now admitted by the Company to have been
materially false.

For more information, contact Thomas G. Shapiro Liz Hutton by Mail: 75
State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800.287.8119 by Fax:
617.439.0134 by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.shulaw.com  


EXTENSITY INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Extensity, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXTN) common stock
from January 26,2000 to December 6,2000.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In January 2000, the
Company commenced an initial public offering of 4,000,000 of its shares
of common stock, at an offering price of $20 per share.

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

     (i) 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 Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 E. 40th
Street, 22nd Floor New York NY 10016 by Phone: 800.217.1522 by E-mail:
infor@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com


FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Dragging Securities Suit in NY "Without Merit"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Department Stores faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased shares of the
Company between February 23,2000 and July 20,2000 against the Company
and certain members of its senior management.

The suit, originally filed as five separate suits in August, September
and October 2000, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The suit
also alleges that the Company, among other things, made false and
misleading statements regarding its financial condition and results of
operations and failed to disclose material information relating to the
credit delinquency problem at its subsidiary Fingerhut.  

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
labeled the suit "without merit" and states its intention to defend
itself vigorously against the allegations in the suit.  


GAME TRACKER: Recalls 25T Climbing Sticks, Steps After Injury Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Game Tracker, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling 25,000 climbing
sticks and tree steps.  The buckles on the climbing sticks and tree
steps can fail, posing a risk of serious injury to hunters.  The
Company and CPSC have received 16 reports of buckles failing,
including one hunter who suffered a partial finger amputation and five
others who suffered cuts, sprains, and bruises.

The recalled Gorilla Ultralite Climbing Sticks, model number 3163,
have the serial numbers 040501, 050501, and 060801, printed on the main
brace of the stick.  The climbing sticks come in three to a package,
are gray in color, have black swivel fold down foot pegs, and a black
strap and buckle system.   The recalled Strap-on Tree Steps, model
numbers 3152 and 3153, have serial number 2899 stamped on the side of
the metal step.  The tree steps have a black strap, with a metal J
hook, black buckle, and a metal step. Hunting supply stores and
catalogs nationwide sold these climbing sticks and tree steps from
February 1999 through September 2001 for between $7 and $100.

For more information, contact the Company by Mail: The Game Tracker
Inc., Attn: Product Safety Coordinator, PO Box 380, 3475 Eastman Dr.,
Flushing, MI 48433, or by Phone: 800.241.4833 (between 8 am and 5 pm ET
Monday through Friday,  or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.thegametracker.comfor a free repair of the climbing sticks  
and a free replacement for the tree steps.


JO-ANN STORES: Discovery Phase Drags On In CA Overtime Pay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. faces a consolidated class action suit filed by
former Company employees in the Superior Court of California on behalf
of the Company's former and current California store management
employees.

In August 2000, Sandy Lortz, a former Jo-Ann's employee filed the first
lawsuit.  That suit was later consolidated with another complaint filed
by former employee, Regina Salas. The consolidated suit alleges that
the Company violated certain California laws by erroneously treating
its store management employees as "exempt" employees who are not
entitled to overtime compensation. The case is in the discovery phase
and no trial date has been set. The Company intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously.


MICHAELS STORES: Court Approves $3.2M Settlement In CA Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Superior Court granted final approval to an
agreement worth $3.2 million entered by Michaels Stores, Inc. to settle
a class action filed on behalf of all the Company's former and current
assistant store managers, seeking overtime compensation.

Taiyeb Raniwala, a former assistant manager of a Company store, filed
the suit in May 2000 charging the Company with violating various
California laws by erroneously treating its stores' assistant store
managers as "exempt" employees who are not entitled to overtime
compensation. Based on these allegations, the suit asserts that the
Company:

     (1) violated various California Wage Orders;

     (2) violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
         Professions Code; and

     (3) engaged in conversion.

In July 2000, Ms. Raniwala amended her complaint to correct certain
deficiencies in the original suit.  In June 2001, the Company
negotiated a tentative settlement with Ms. Raniwala, which the court
approved last month.  The distribution of the settlement proceeds must
be made by January 19, 2002. The settlement effectively dismissed all
claims against the Company.


NBTY INC.: Securities Suits' Dismissal Decisions Pending In NY, FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. vowed to vigorously oppose several securities suits pending
in various state courts filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock between January 27, 2000 and June 15, 2000 against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.

The first consolidated stockholder suit is pending in the US District
Court of the Eastern District of New York and alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose material facts during the class period
that purportedly resulted in a decline in the price of the Company's
stock after June 15, 2000. In October, 2001, the Company made an
application to the court requesting the dismissal of the lawsuit on the
basis that it is legally deficient. That motion is presently pending.

In addition to the consolidated class action, two stockholder
derivative actions were filed in 2000 in the Chancery Court in Delaware
and in a Florida State court against certain officers and directors.
The derivative claims are predicated upon the stockholder class actions
pending in New York. Proceedings in the Delaware derivative action have
been stayed pending the outcome of the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit and a motion is pending to dismiss the
Florida action on jurisdictional grounds.

The Company denies all claims of wrongdoing in the suits but cannot
give any reassurance with regard to the final outcome of the
litigation.


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC initiated a securities class action against Noven
Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:NOVN) and its principal officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Company's securities during the during period from March 27, 2001
through and including November 1, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of l934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between March 27, 2001 and November 1, 2001.

Throughout the class period, the Company publicly touted two of its
women's hormone replacement products and represented that sales of
these agents would be substantial. These statements, as alleged in the
complaint, were materially false and misleading because, by November
13, 2000, defendants knew that Novartis Pharma AG, its exclusive
marketing agent in Europe, was not aggressively marketing the Company's
two hormone drugs, and that Novartis was instead marketing its own
competing drug, Estraderm.

On August 2, 2001, the Company issued a press release that only
partially revealed the truth, stating that sales to Novartis were
weaker than analysts and investors had been led to believe. In
response, the Company's stock price plunged 43%, to close at $18.98 on
August 3, 2001.

Subsequently, on November 1, 2001, the Company issued a press release
that revealed, for the first time, that:

     (1) Novartis had its own hormone replacement system and would not
         be converting to the Company's product;

     (2) Novartis had excess inventories of the Company's products; and

     (3) as a result, the Company's European sales would decline
         substantially in the fourth quarter of 2001 and 2002.

In response to this announcement, Company stock price fell by 33% to
$14.89.

For further details, contact Todd S. Collins or 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


OPTICAL CABLE: Federman Sherwood Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Optical Cable Corporation (Nasdaq:
OCCF) during the period between July 31, 2000 and October 8, 2001,
inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and directors

The suit charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the class
period, defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
information that materially misstated the Company's condition and
prospects. Moreover, the Company failed to disclose material
information necessary to make its prior statements not misleading.

The suit further alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities law by engaging in a conspiracy and/or course of conduct
pursuant to which they made a series of materially false and misleading
statements and failed to make and/or omitted necessary, required,
accurate, and material statements concerning the business and financial
operations of the Company, its common stock, and the holdings of Mr.
Kopstein, with the intent and having the effect of substantially
inflating the price of common stock.

For more information, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: 405.235.1560 by
Fax: 405.239.2112 or by E-mail: wFederman@aol.com
     

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Keller Rohrback Considers Possible ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP is currently investigating potential Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of Providian Financial Corporation's (NYSE:PVN)
retirement and 401(k) plans. The investigation period covers June 6,
2001 through October 18, 2001 and focuses on concerns that, under the
law interpreting ERISA, the Company and its plan administrators may
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by failing
to disclose and inform the plan participants and beneficiaries with
respect to the Company's operations and prospects for second and third
quarters 2001.

Rather than providing complete and accurate information to the plan's
participants, it may be alleged that the Company and the plan
administrators may have withheld and concealed material information,
thereby encouraging participants and beneficiaries to continue to make
and to maintain substantial investments in company stock and the plans.
This investigation is being conducted in light of recent events.

In late June 2001, the Company changed the way it processes its
bankruptcy filings and thus changed when it recognizes losses and
deferred the recognition of approximately $30 million of charge-offs
from June (and second quarter 2001) into July.  The Company allegedly
manipulated its financial statements for second quarter 2001 and shaved
40 basis points off its second quarter 2001 managed net charge-off rate
of 10.3% and boosted reported EPS by $0.06. Without this change, the
loss rate would have been 10.7%, well above defendants' guidance of
9.5%-10%.

Defendants made no mention of this change on the conference call or in
the Company's second quarter 2001 10-Q. In fact, management only
admitted this change after they came under pressure from analysts
following a flood of calls to their investor relations department in
late August 2001.

During the class period, taking advantage of the inflation in Company
stock, certain of the Company's officers and directors sold almost $22
million worth of their own stock at artificially inflated prices of as
much as $49.30 per share. These sales were out of line with their prior
trading history.

For more information, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Ray Farrow, Britt
Tinglum, or Lynn Sarko by Phone: 800.776.6044 by E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.SeattleClassAction.com.


RESONATE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Resonate, Inc.'s (NASDAQ: RSNT) stock
from August 2,2000 to December 6,2000.

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 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 Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 E. 40th
Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 by Phone: 800.217.1522 by E-
mail: info@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com


SRI SURGICAL: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in M.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC filed a securities class action against SRI
Surgical Express, Inc. (NASDAQ: STRC) and its principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida (Tampa) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Company securities during the period from July 23, 2001 through and
including November 27, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of l934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 23, 2001 and November 27, 2001. Specifically, on
July 23, 2001 the Company issued a press release announcing financial
results for the second quarter of 2001, which reflected an increase in
earnings and revenues from the second quarter of 2000.

The press release attributed the seemingly positive results to
processing and delivery efficiencies and a supposedly lucrative
contract with Health Trust Purchasing Group (HGP). These results were
incorporated into the Company's financial statements on Form 10-Q,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2001.

On October 22, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing
record revenues for its third quarter of 2001, which it attributed, in
part, to the HGP contract. These statements are alleged to be
materially false and misleading because the Company's business was
being negatively impacted by the HGP contract and the Company's
seemingly impressive growth was achieved in part, through improper
revenue recognition.

On November 27, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it would restate its earnings and revenues for the third quarter
of 2001 because certain revenues should not properly have been
recognized in that quarter. Its financial performance, as restated,
does not meet analysts' expectations for the third quarter and that the
Company will not meet analysts' expectations for the fourth quarter
2001 due to increased sales and administrative expenses and startup
costs associated with new business. In reaction to the announcement,
the price of the Company's common stock plummeted by 40%, to close at
$14.63 per share on November 28, 2001.

For more details, contact Todd S. Collins, 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


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Take-Two
Interactive Software Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO) between February 24, 2000 and
December 17, 2001 inclusive in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Ryan A. Brant, CEO until February 26, 2001, thereafter
         Chairman,

     (2) Kelly G. Sumner, Director until February 26, 2001, thereafter
         CEO,

     (3) James H. David Jr., CFO from the Company's third quarter of
         fiscal year 2000,

     (4) Paul Eibeler, President and Director, and

     (5) Larry Muller, CFO until the third quarter of the Company's
         fiscal year 2000

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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between February 24, 2000 and December 17,
2001, concerning its financial performance for the Company's fiscal
year 2000 and the first three quarters of the Company's fiscal year
2001.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued press releases reporting
the Company's quarterly and year-end financial performance, and filed
reports confirming such performance with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission.  These reports positively portrayed the
Company's performance during the class period and discussed several
quarters of supposedly "record" results.  These statements, as alleged
in the complaint, were materially false and misleading because the
Company had, throughout the class period, improperly recognized
revenues, thereby inflating its reported sales and earnings.

On December 14, 2001, the price of the Company's stock plunged 31%,
falling from $15.05 to $10.33, as news leaked that it will likely
restate previously filed financial reports. On December 17, 2001, the
Company issued a press release announcing that it will restate its
financial results for its fiscal year 2000 and the first three quarters
of its fiscal year 2001. According to the press release, the Company
had improperly recognized revenue on products that were subsequently
returned.

For fiscal year 2000, the restatement will have the effect of
decreasing net sales by $12-$15 million and decreasing net income by
$3.1-$3.7 million. For the three quarters of 2001, the restatement will
have the effect of decreasing net sales by approximately $9.5 million
and increasing net income by $0.3 million.

For further details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Phone: 800.320.5081 by E-mail: taketwocase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com
                 

TOYS R US: Consumers Sue For Unauthorized Use of Private Information
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Toys R Us, Inc. faces a federal and a state class action filed on
behalf of all persons who have visited one or more of the company's web
sites and either made an online purchase or allegedly had information
about them unlawfully "intercepted,"  "monitored," "transmitted," or
"used."

The consolidated federal suit, now pending in the United States
District for the Northern District of California, arose from suits
commenced in August 2000 in these venues:

     (1) eight suits in the United States District Court for the  
         District of New Jersey;

     (2) three in the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California; and

     (3) two in the United States District Court for the Western
         District of Texas;

The state class action was commenced in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Bernardino.

Both federal and state suits name as defendants the Company, affiliates
Toysrus.com, Inc. and Toysrus.com, LLC, and Coremetrics, Inc, an
Internet marketing company. The suits generally assert various claims
under the federal privacy and computer fraud statutes, as well as under
state statutory and common law, arising out of an agreement between the
Company and Coremetrics.  The suits allege that the Company tracks its
web site users' activities online and shares that information with
third parties in violation of the law.

The Company and Coremetrics consequently filed a joint application with
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have all of the
federal actions consolidated and transferred to the United States
District court for the Northern District of California, which the panel
approved in November 2000.

The Company moved for a stay of the state action pending resolution of
the actions filed in federal court, which the court granted in May
2001.  Consequently, the plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed
the action without prejudice.  

The Company then filed a motion to dismiss the federal suits, which the
court granted in part and denied in part in October 2001.  The Court's
order dismissed one cause of action without leave to amend, dismissed a
second cause of action with leave to amend and denied the Company's
motion as to the third cause of action. On October 16, 2001 plaintiff's
filed an amended complaint to remedy the defects in the cause of action
previously dismissed with leave to amend.


UNION DISCORD: Home-Care Workers Say State, Union Laws Unconstitutional
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The state and a public employees' union are being sued over a law that
classifies home-care providers as public employees and requires them to
pay union dues, the Associated Press recently reported.  

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (Right to Work)
filed a class action suit in US District Court on behalf of 80,000
home-care providers in Los Angeles County.  The Service Employees
International Local 434B, the county's Personal Assistance Services
Council (PASC) and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, along with several
California officials, are named as defendants.

The suit asks that the union's contract with Personal Assistance
Service Council (PASC), as well as its ability to collect mandatory
dues payments, be revoked as an unconstitutional infringement on
workers' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.  
Attorneys are also demanding that the union dues paid by the workers be
returned. Stefan Gleason, Vice President of Right to Work, said, "This
statute appears to be a fund-raising scam by the union to force home-
care providers to join the union and pay dues as a condition of
employment. .Based on 80,000 people in the county alone, we're looking
at about $20 million that is skimmed off the top of this public benefit
program."

Although they are reimbursed through the state, the workers are
independently hired, fired, supervised and trained by individual
recipients of home care.  Therefore, they should not be covered under a
public employee bargaining agreement, Mr. Gleason said.

Tyrone Freeman, President of Local 434B, called the lawsuit "an attempt
to turn back the clock on LA's frailest residents."  The 1999
establishment of the PASC, the county registry through which the
workers are screened and unionized, has brought standards and
accountability to the home-care system, he said.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll PLLC commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of XO
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: XOXO) during the period of April 4, 2001
through and including November 29, 2001.  

The suit alleges 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 XO's financial condition as well as
its present and future business prospects.  In particular, the suit
alleges that defendants misled the investing public concerning the
Company's ability 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 Steven J. Toll or Mary Ann Fink by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 by
Phone: 888.240.0775 or 202.408.4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
mfink@cmht.com


*Class Actions Lawsuits Find Accepting Home in Madison County, Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County's once bustling steel plants and oil refineries have
quieted, and about the biggest thing left in the southern Illinois
county is a 170-foot-high water tank shaped like a bottle of ketchup
that sits along Highway 159, according to a US News & World Report
commentary.

However, Madison County has a new growth industry, the class action
lawsuit.  In Edwardsville, the county seat, the courthouse bustles as
nationally-known law firms recruit local lawyers to handle cases.
Residents call its third floor "Rodeo Drive" because of the high-
quality haberdashery of the lawyers who gather there.

With a population of 258,941, US News & World Report points out,
Madison County has hosted 50 class action lawsuits so far this year, up
from 39, the same time mid-December, the prior year.  The conservative
Manhattan Institute calculates that Madison County's per capita
class action filing rate is about 20 times the national average.  "It's
a booming business," says William Schroeder, a law professor at
Southern Illinois University.

Ask corporate lawyers, both here and elsewhere, and they will explain
the great activity.  Madison County's judges just seem more sensitive
to the claims of plaintiffs.   The plaintiffs' lawyer would seem
derelict if he didn't get their case into this environment, and lawyers
are doing that.  Madison County has become Exhibit "A" in the growing
movement to keep lawyers from shopping around for friendly courtrooms.  
Consider the case of Strasen v. Allstate Insurance, says U.S. News &
World Report as an illustration.  The case alleges that Allstate uses a
faulty database to decide appropriate medical treatment and payment for
certain kinds of claims.   Similar cases have been filed across the
country, all seeking nationwide class-action status.  None succeeded
before, but in Madison, one did.

The reason for this success, some lawyers say, lies in Madison County's
blue-collar roots, which makes it a sympathetic venue for claimants.
If you got hurt at one of the local factories and filed a tort claim
for damages, chances are the jurors hearing your case did the same kind
of work.  Unlike in St. Louis to the west, jurors and judges have no
allegiance to a corporate behemoth downtown. There really aren't any.
Each plaintiff's damages may be small, but taken together they can
amount to a staggering sum.  In nearby Williamson County, a class-
action suit against State Farm Mutual alleged that the insurance
company directed auto shops to use generic, or "after-market," parts,
such as hoods and fenders, to repair damaged cars without telling the
policyholders.  

A jury in 1999 agreed and awarded plaintiffs $456 million.  A judge,
says US News & World Report, more than doubled the verdict to $1.2
billion.  While corporate lawyers say the award, which is under appeal,
showcases a runaway system, few are willing to chance a similar loss.  
Once a case is certified as a class action, plaintiffs' lawyers expect
a call from their opponents with an expensive settlement offer.  In
fact, in recent memory, no jury has decided on a class action case.
Defendants hasten to settle.

The friendliness of juries and judges to class actions is not
necessarily a reputation that is "well deserved," says P.J. O'Neill,
the county's Chief Judge since 1978.  "If there's anything to it, it's
the matter of the expertise of the lawyers."  Five decades of heavy
litigating has drawn some of the country's best lawyers to Madison and
made the judges there well equipped to handle the cases, he says.  If
that makes the county a good place to file a lawsuit, well, so be it.
"Getting another class action case is not something we look forward
to," he says.

However, torts are undeniably good for the local economy.  When court
is in session, according to this report, the lunch spots on Main Street
fill up, and the courthouse needs plenty of clerks to move the
paperwork.

                              *********


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  * * *