CAR_Public/020425.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Thursday, April 25, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 81

                           Headlines

AUTO LENDERS: Face Suit In GA Court Alleging Racial Discrimination
CABLEVISION: Will Pay Refunds After Dispute Blocks Yankee Broadcast
HAWAII: Faces Potential Suit Over Employee Retirement System Losses
HOME SHOPPING: Consumers File Suit Over Purchase of Proteva Computer
HORIZON FITNESS: Voluntarily Recalls 5,900 Treadmills For Injury Hazard

INDIAN FUNDS: BIA Head Says Give Indians Role in Trust System Reform
JOHNSON JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Defective "SureStep" Glucose Monitors  
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Court Grants Certification To ADA Violations Suit
MONTANA: Facility Faces Civil Rights Suit On Behalf of Youthful Inmates
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Former Employees Commence Wage Suit in CA Court

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Hispanic Employees File Discrimination Suit

                         Securities Fraud

ANDRX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in N.D. TX
AUDIBLE INC.: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
BLUE MARTINI: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CIRCUIT CITY: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
CIRCUIT CITY: Ademi O'Reilly Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
DELTATHREE INC.: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY

E-LOAN INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EAGLE BUILDING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
ECOMETRY CORPORATION: FL Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
GILAT SATELLITE: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. NY
HIGH SPEED: Opposes Claims in Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY

HIGH SPEED: Faces Potential Suit Over Digital Chainsaw Acquisition
H&R BLOCK: Appeals Court Reverses Approval of Settlement in Loans Suit
INFORMAX INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
INSWEB CORPORATION: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Suit in S.D. NY
JDS UNIPHASE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

JDS UNIPHASE: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
L90 INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. California
L90 INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in NJ

METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WA
NET PERCEPTIONS: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
NETWORK COMMERCE: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in WA
NTL INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
PURCHASEPRO.COM: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NV

PURCHASEPRO.COM: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
SEQUENOM INC.: Denies Securities Suits' Allegations in S.D. NY
STILLWATER MINING: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
THESTREET.COM: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
VIRATA CORPORATION: Building Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
                              
                            *********

AUTO LENDERS: Face Suit In GA Court Alleging Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Four lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court in
Georgia charging four automobile lenders with racial discrimination
after they allegedly charged black car shoppers with higher interest
rates than similarly situated white buyers, Macon.com reports.  The
suit names as defendants:

     (1) Primus Financial Services, a wholesale financing unit of Ford
         Motor Credit Company,

     (2) Bank of America,

     (3) Financial Acceptance Inc., and

     (4) Bank One Corporation

The suits allege that the defendants struck deals with car dealers
nationwide to mark up finance rates. They contend that the dealers who
arranged financing for car buyers with the companies would obtain an
objective rate from the lender, then were allowed to inflate the costs
of loans based on subjective factors, the Associated Press reports.  
The dealers then would split the extra money with the lender without
the customers' knowledge.

The suit alleges that, "It is well-known throughout the banking and
lending industry that (a) subjective pricing systems results in
African-American(s) paying more in non-risk-related credit charges than
white customers."  The complaints don't give specific dollar figures on
what the bias may cost customers, but say disparities can be shown by
"statistical review of an adequate, competent and relevant data set."

The suits are similar to pending class actions filed by other black
borrowers in Nashville against the financing arms of Nissan and General
Motors.  Both suits have been certified as class actions.


CABLEVISION: Will Pay Refunds After Dispute Blocks Yankee Broadcast
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision agreed to give more than US$1.4 million a month in refunds
to its subscribers after they complained about their inability to watch
New York Yankees games due to a dispute between the Company and YES,
the Yankee's new television network.

The Company, which has approximately 3 million customers in New York,
New Jersey and Connecticut, and YES, failed to agree on a deal that
would allow YES to be offered to its customers.  According to a CNN
report, YES, seeking to maximize its audience, is insisting that the
Company make the new channel part of its basic service package, which
would put it in all subscribers' homes.  The Company, however, wants to
put YES on a "premium tier," available only to those customers who pay
an extra fee.

As a result of the dispute, several Yankee fans filed a class action
suit in federal court seeking to have the games shown while
negotiations continue.  A defense motion to dismiss the suit was
adjourned until Thursday.

The rebates would go to viewers of the Madison Square Garden Network,
which no longer broadcasts Yankees games, and would amount to at least
55 cents a month per customer, Cablevision New York president Tom
Rutledge told CNN. "All the money to be refunded to Cablevision from
MSG Network will be passed along to our customers in the form of these
rebates,"  Mr. Rutledge said.

Customers will receive notification of their specific rebate in their
May statements, spokesman Keith Cocozza said, adding that the rebates
are retroactive to January.  YES is scheduled to show 130 of the
regular season's 162 games.  Another 20 games will be carried on WCBS-
TV and the remainder will appear on ESPN or FOX, CNN reports.


HAWAII: Faces Potential Suit Over Employee Retirement System Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Hawaii faces a class action filed by Honolulu law firm
Davis Levin Livingston Grand, involving losses the state incurred in
its Employee Retirement System (ERS), the Pacific Business Journal
reports.  The ERS is a $8.4 billion retirement fund for 90,000 state
and county workers, one third of who are currently retired.

Lead Attorney Mark Davis said the suit is completely unrelated to the
ERS's retention of the 3Bridge firm.  The ERS received a lot of
criticism when it went against the recommendation of its external
consultant, Callan Associates Inc., to fire 3Bridge Capital for being
in the bottom 10 percent of value managers in the one-, two-, three-,
five- and 10-year periods.  According to the ERS, 3Bridge lost $100
million from the fund since 1999


HOME SHOPPING: Consumers File Suit Over Purchase of Proteva Computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Shopping Network, Inc. faces an amended consumer class action
pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division against the Company and:

     (1) John Roberts,

     (2) William Lynch,

     (3) Brian Jordan,

     (4) The Home Shopping Network, and

     (5) Home Shopping Club, LP

The suit was originally brought on behalf of consumers who were alleged
to have purchased a Proteva personal computer from one of the
defendants and experienced one of the three following conditions:

     (i) the computer was or became defective upon purchase or soon
         thereafter;

    (ii) a defendant refused or failed to honor the rebate offer which
         was offered as part of the sale; or

   (iii) a defendant refused or failed to provide customer service as
         purportedly advertised

In the suit, the plaintiffs assert causes of action for consumer fraud,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment and
seek compensatory and punitive damages along with interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.

The original suit was later amended to include additional plaintiffs
and defendants.  The first amended suit also expanded the existing
warranty cause of action to also apply to breach of express warranty.
In May 2000, the Company and Home Shopping Club LP filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  The court later addressed the motion to
dismiss by entering an order that, in pertinent part, required the
plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint.

In June 2000, the plaintiffs filed a second amended suit that, among
other things, added an additional plaintiff and asserted two additional
causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of
contract.

The plaintiffs again filed a third amended suit in December 2000, that
added an additional named plaintiff, and removed three corporate
defendants to come up with the present list of defendants.  The suit
also removed causes of actions for negligent misrepresentation and
breach of contract.

In February 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  In July 2001, the plaintiffs sought and were granted
leave to file a fourth amended class action complaint that added an
additional named plaintiff.

In December 2001, the Court granted class certification for an Illinois
class only (plaintiffs were seeking nationwide class certification).  
The parties are engaged in discovery and the Company continues to
vigorously defend this action.


HORIZON FITNESS: Voluntarily Recalls 5,900 Treadmills For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Fitness is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 5,900 treadmills.  A
component of the electronic control panel can malfunction, causing the
motor and walking belt to rapidly accelerate and the user can lose
balance and fall.  The Company has received 15 reports of consumers
losing their balance and falling off of the treadmill. Injuries include
cuts and abrasions.

The models included in the recall are the model year 2000/2001 Paragon,
Quantum and Omega treadmills.  This recall does not include any 2002
model product, which include the Omega II, Quantum II, Paragon II, and
Alpine.

Sporting goods stores, including Total Fitness Solutions, Fitness  
Warehouse and Play It Again Sports sold these treadmills nationwide
from  November 2000 through June 2001 for between $699 and $1099.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 866-864-3840 or
888-993-3199 between 8 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday to receive
a repair kit and to set up an appointment to receive an in-home repair.
Consumers should have their serial number available at the time of the
call to determine if their unit is affected.


INDIAN FUNDS: BIA Head Says Give Indians Role in Trust System Reform
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) said recently that
American Indian tribes should have a major role in reforming the 115-
year-old Indian trust system, The Associated Press reports.

Neal McCaleb, who heads the BIA, said the agency has been working with
tribes through the National Congress of American Indians Trust Reform
Task Force since January of this year.  The task force is scheduled to
meet again in San Diego, Mr. McCaleb said.  "We are working with tribal
leaders from all over the United States to determine how best to
reorganize the trust activities, either within the BIA or outside of
the BIA, or, maybe, outside of the Department of Interior," he told the
Tulsa World while visiting a Tahlequah, Oklahoma high school.

A class action pending in federal court in Washington, DC, contends
that the BIA has lost at least $10 billion since the individual trust
fund system was set up 115 years ago.  The trust fund oversees the
management of royalties from mining, grazing, logging, gas and oil
drilling and other uses of Indian lands.  Plaintiffs want US District
Court Judge Royce Lamberth to turn over the system to a temporary
receiver.  Meanwhile, Interior Secretary Gale Norton recently named
former Cherokee Nation Chief Ross Swimmer to form a new Bureau of
Indian Trust Assets Management.

However, some Indian leaders have problems with Mr. Swimmer, saying he
failed the Indian trust fund when he served as head of the BIA during
the Reagan administration.  Mr. McCaleb, however, defended Mr.
Swimmer's credentials, saying he has an excellent background as a
tribal leader, an excellent background in the banking community, and he
is an attorney.  Mr. Swimmer has advocated private accounting of the
$500 million a year in historically mismanaged royalties from Indian
lands.

Mr. McCaleb said that Judge Lamberth has grown "very impatient because
he does not think the BIA has been moving fast enough to correct the
problem."  The Judge has threatened to hold both Mr. McCaleb and
Secretary Norton in contempt of court.


JOHNSON JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Defective "SureStep" Glucose Monitors  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson and Johnson and some of its subsidiaries face a class action,
claiming they manufactured defective glucose monitors used by people
with diabetes under the name Surestep.  The suit also names the
Company's subsidiaries, Lifescan Inc. and Lifescan Canada as
defendants.

The suit alleges that the defective monitors displayed inaccurate blood
glucose readings, failing to indicate dangerously high blood glucose
levels, and that the users experienced severe adverse reactions, which
in some cases resulted in death.  The Consumers are seeking general
damages in the amount of $500 million, plus punitive damages and other
relief.

The SureStep glucose monitors were sold to consumers despite the
Company's alleged knowledge of two latent design and manufacturing
defects:

     (1) due to an allegedly defective test strip and accompanying
         meter, the SureStep system allegedly falsely displayed a low
         glucose reading without the user receiving an indication that
         an error had occurred;

     (2) an inaccurate error message allegedly occurred when a user's
         blood glucose level was above 500 mg/dl, which did not alert
         users of their dangerously elevated blood glucose level.  This
         allegedly led to the user's failure to take immediate
         corrective medical action.

Kirk Baert of the Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky adds, "There can be no
compromises when people's health and well being are at stake."

In the United States, the Company paid the US government $60 million
after having pleaded guilty to criminal conduct following a grand jury
investigation.

For more information, contact Kirk Baert by Phone: 416-977-8353 or
Denise Riposati of Public Perspectives Inc. by Phone: 416-595-2069


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Court Grants Certification To ADA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
certified as a class action a lawsuit filed against Lifepoint
Hospitals, Inc. by Access Now, Inc., a disability rights organization.

The suit charges each of the Company's hospitals with non-compliance
with the accessibility guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).  The suit seeks injunctive relief requiring facility
modification, where necessary, to meet the ADA guidelines, along with
attorneys fees and costs.

In January 2002, the court certified the suit and issued a scheduling
order that requires the parties to complete discovery and inspection
for approximately six facilities per year.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit, recognizing its obligation to correct
any deficiencies in order to comply with the ADA.


MONTANA: Facility Faces Civil Rights Suit On Behalf of Youthful Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pine Hills Correctional Facility faces a civil rights lawsuit filed
in District Judge Kenneth Neill's court by Great Falls attorney Patrick
Flaherty, alleging that 21 former inmates of the facility were pepper-
sprayed. The suit also states that the inmates provided sexual favors
in return for special treatment, all in violation of state corrections
policy and the state constitution, The Associated Press reports.  The
lawsuit asks Judge Neill to certify it as a class action.

"Some of the . youths are eyewitnesses to being given illegal
substances and pornography in exchange for favors," the lawsuit said.
"Numerous youths have had sexual relations with staff members."

The lawsuit alleges further that departmental policy authorizes pepper
spray at Pine Hills only to control a situation, never as punishment,
and follow-up procedure involves a cold shower and subsequent
documentation of the incident.  Contrary to mandated procedure, some of
the youths "were dragged naked into hot showers, which exacerbates the
pain of the spray," the lawsuit alleges.  "These youths were pepper-
sprayed when such actions were not authorized, reasonable or
necessary.They were pepper-sprayed excessively in both quantity and
severity."

"The use of pepper spray was not only negligent as being in violation,
but also done in such a manner as to constitute cruel and unusual
punishment, and also discrimination based on race because a
disproportionate number of the victims are Native Americans," the suit
contends.

The Reverend Bud Heringer of Wolf Point said the lawsuit arose from his
two-year investigation into the use of pepper spray at Pine Hills.  "I
have interviewed about 30 boys separately and have been told they were
given alcohol to have sex with some staff members," he said.  ".over
and over again, they named the same staff members.

Department of Corrections Director William Slaughter said the suit has
no merit.  There is no truth to any of the accusations, he said.  "We
take all allegations seriously, but we are going to defend this with
vigor."


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Former Employees Commence Wage Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants faces two class actions filed by its former
employees in the California Superior Court in Orange County on behalf
of its former and current employees who work in the position of general
manager and assistant manager for its stores, a position the Company
classifies as exempt.

The suits involve the issue of whether certain employees and former
employees in the assistant and general manager positions who worked in
the California restaurants were misclassified as exempt and deprived of
overtime pay. In addition to unpaid overtime, the former employees seek
to recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees he
purports to represent.

The Company believes the suits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the claims related to this matter.  The first suit is
in the early stages of discovery and no date has been set for the class
certification motion. No discovery has been conducted in the second
suit, and it is probable that this action will either be stayed pending
the resolution of the previously described action or will be
consolidated into the aforementioned action.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Hispanic Employees File Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications, Inc. faces a class action filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Dallas on behalf of about
3,500 Hispanic employees who worked at the Company and its
predecessors, GTE and Bell Atlantic, for the last four years or more,
the Dallas Business Journal reports.

The suit alleges that the Company systematically discriminated against
Hispanic employees in pay, job advancement and terminations.  The
Company allegedly denied Hispanic employees the same training mentoring
and opportunities for pay and advancement that are offered to Caucasian
employees.  The suit further claimed the Company had a "culture of
hostility toward Hispanic employees" and alleges that the Company
retaliated against Hispanic employees for campaigning for diversity and
equal employment opportunities.

In a statement, attorney for the plaintiffs James Jones said, "Verizon
has known for years that its employment polices and practices have
resulted in lower pay and far less opportunities for advancement for
Hispanic employees compared to Caucasian peers, but it has done nothing
to solve or even address this company wide problem."  

Lawyers for the plaintiffs added the Company has an "astonishingly low
percentage of Hispanics at all management levels."  Law firm Sprenger
and Lang, who are working for the plaintiffs, stated that in 2001,
Hispanic representation in management positions at the Company's
largest business unit was 22 percent less than their representation in
non-management positions.  In the Company's retail business unit,
Hispanic representation in management positions was 39 percent less
than their representation in non-management positions, the firm said,
according to a Dallas Business Journal report.  The suit also claims
the company compensates Hispanic employees at lower rates than white
peers, even when they hold the same or similar jobs.

The Company denied the accusations, saying it and its predecessor
companies have had long-standing practices and policies to ensure
diversity and provide a work environment that is free from
discrimination and harassment.

"Verizon abhors discrimination of any kind," the company said in a
statement.  "We're proud of our record on diversity, which compares
favorably with any in American business."


                         Securities Fraud


ANDRX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of Andrx Corporation securities between
April 30, 2001 and February 21, 2002, inclusive, against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading statements throughout the class period
that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements concerning Taztia XT, the generic version of
Biovail Corporation's Tiazac, a blood pressure drug.  Defendants
repeatedly represented to the investing public that Taztia would be
marketed once the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave final
approval for the product.  Defendants claimed that this was delayed by
ongoing patent litigation with Biovail regarding Tiazac.

However, the true problem was that the Company had difficulty producing
a stable version of Taztia.  There were thirteen amendments to its
primary application to the FDA.  This, rather than any patent
litigation with Biovail, remains as the cause of the Company's
inability to bring Taztia to market.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Andrx.  


ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in N.D. TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascendant Solutions, Inc. faces five securities class actions pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
against the Company, certain of its directors, and a limited
partnership of which a Company director is a partner.

The suits assert causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for an unspecified amount
of damages on behalf of a putative class of individuals who purchased
the Company's common stock between various periods ranging from
November 11, 1999 to January 24, 2000.  The suits claim that the
Company and the individual defendants made misstatements and omissions
concerning the Company's products and customers.

The Company denies the suits' allegations and intends to vigorously
defend against the lawsuits.  The litigation is at its early stages and
as such, the Company cannot predict any outcome.


AUDIBLE INC.: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Audible, Inc. and certain of its officers, directors and former
directors face several securities class actions pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit
also names as defendants the underwriters of the Company's 1999 initial
public offering.

The suits allege that the underwriter defendants allocated the
opportunity to participate in the IPO by requiring their customers to
pay kickbacks in excess of the normal commissions and to make
subsequent purchases in the aftermarket at prices in excess of the IPO
price.  Allegedly, the amounts of the kickbacks were sometimes
calculated as a percentage of the customer's paper profits over some
specified period of time after the IPO.

The suit further asserts that these practices were not disclosed in the
registration statement and prospectus for the IPO and that, as a
result, the defendants violated various provisions of the federal
securities laws.

Certain of the suits purport to set forth claims on behalf of persons
who acquired the Company's common stock from July 16, 1999 to September
11, 2001.  One other complaint purports to represent a class of persons
who acquired the Company's common stock between July 16, 1999 and
December 6, 2000.

The cases have been consolidated and have been assigned to the same
judge who is handling virtually identical cases filed against hundreds
of other companies that completed initial public offerings between 1998
and 2000.  The Company and the individual defendants have been given an
indefinite extension of time to respond to the complaints while the
plaintiffs focus on pursuing their claims against the underwriters.

The Company believes that the claims against it have no merit and, more
specifically, contends that it and the individual defendants were not
aware of the alleged practices, if they occurred.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself and the individual defendants.


BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Backweb Technologies, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's stock between June
8, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The Company, certain of its executive
officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering are named as defendants in the
complaint.

The suit alleges that certain conduct of the underwriters in connection
with the allocation of shares of the Company's initial public offering
violated the federal securities laws.  The suit further states that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a
registration statement that contained material misstatements and/or
omissions because it did not disclose the alleged conduct by the
underwriters that is at issue in the lawsuit.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend this action vigorously.  


BLUE MARTINI: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Martini Software, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
face a consolidated securities class action shareholder complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws because the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus
allegedly contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the
stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The Company is aware that similar complaints were filed in the same
court against hundreds of other public companies that conducted IPOs of
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  In August 2001, these IPO-
related lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge
Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.  Judge
Scheindlin held an initial case management conference on September 7,
2001, at which time she ordered, among other things, that the time for
all defendants in the IPO lawsuits to respond to any complaint be
postponed until further order of the court.  Thus, the Company has not
been required to answer any of the complaints, and no discovery has
been served on it.

At a further status conference on March 11, 2002, Judge Scheindlin
stated that she would appoint lead plaintiffs' counsel in the IPO
lawsuits in March 2002 and would require the appointed lead plaintiffs'
counsel to file amended, consolidated complaints in these IPO-related
lawsuits by April 17, 2002.  Judge Scheindlin further stated that she
did not expect the defendants to file motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaints until the summer of 2002.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE:
BMY) between September 19, 2001 and January 4, 2002, inclusive, against
the Company and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making itself, and allowing its drug development partner to make,
without correction, materially false and misleading statements about
the progress of its Erbitux cancer treatment drug's application for FDA
approval even as the Company knew that the application and data were
false.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on December 28, 2001, a press
release disclosed that the FDA had rejected the filing of a Biologics
License Application for Erbitux. On January 4, 2002, The Cancer Letter
reported that the FDA repeatedly informed defendants about problems
with the Erbitux clinical trials during the class period.

These shocking revelations caused the stock to plummet from a class
period high of $56 to below $50, and now to $40.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE:BMY) claiming that the company
misled investors about its business and financial condition, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all investors who bought the Company's securities between May
16, 2001 and April 3, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws by making itself,
and allowing its drug development partner to make, without correction,
materially false and misleading statements about the progress of its
Erbitux cancer treatment drug's application for FDA approval even as it
knew that the application and data were false.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on December 28, 2001, a press
release disclosed that the FDA had rejected the filing of a Biologics
License Application for Erbitux.  On January 4, 2002, The Cancer Letter
reported that the FDA repeatedly informed defendants about problems
with the Erbitux clinical trials during the class period.  These
shocking revelations caused the stock to plummet from a class period
high of $56 to below $50, and now to $40.

For more information, contact the Shareholder Relations Manager by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


CIRCUIT CITY: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Circuit City
Stores, Inc. (NYSE: CC) between December 6, 2001 and February 22, 2002,
inclusive in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and Alan W. McCollough.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements during the class period which failed to disclose,
among other things, that the Company was facing significant inventory
shortages and was experiencing problems with its internal controls
which would result in the Company having to incur additional expenses
associated with the termination of leases and with the remodeling of
almost half of its retail stores.

When defendants belatedly disclosed these problems on February 22,
2002, the last day of the class period, the price of Company stock
plummeted over 33% to close at $16.08 per share.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 or contact Abraham Rappaport or Tara Isaacson by
Mail: The Plaza, 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL 33486
by Phone: 561-361-5000 by E-mail: CircuitCitycase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com


CIRCUIT CITY: Ademi O'Reilly Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a securities class
action against Circuit City Stores, Inc. (NYSE:CC), alleging violations
of the federal securities laws, on behalf of investors purchasing the
Company's stock between December 6, 2001 and February 22, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Virginia against the Company and Alan W.
McCollough.

The suit alleges that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading misrepresentations to the market, during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities.  This
practice violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suit alleges that defendants concealed that the Company was facing
significant inventory shortages and was experiencing problems with its
internal controls, which would result in the Company having to incur
additional expenses associated with the termination of leases and with
the remodeling of almost half of its retail stores.

When defendants belatedly disclosed these problems on February 22,
2002, the last day of the class period, the price of Company stock
plummeted over 33% to close at $16.08 per share.

For more information, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: 866-264-3995 toll
free by Fax: 414-482-8001 by E-mail: circuitcity@ademilaw.com or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.ademilaw.com


DELTATHREE INC.: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
deltathree, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
arising out of the Company's initial public offering (IPO) in November
1999.  The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its former
officers and directors, as well as various underwriters of its IPO.

The suits allege, among other things, that the registration statement
and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
purposes of the IPO were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that the underwriters allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for allocating to them shares of Company stock in
         connection with the IPO; and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to allocate such
         stock to those customers in exchange for the customers
         agreeing to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

In August 2001, the court ordered that these actions, along with
hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers, be transferred
to Judge Schira Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  By
Order dated October 12, 2001, Judge Scheindlin adjourned all
defendants' time to respond to or answer any of the complaints until
further order of the Court. These cases remain at a preliminary stage
and no discovery proceedings have taken place.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in these cases
are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them.


E-LOAN INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Loan, Inc. intends to vigorously oppose a consolidated securities
class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters who were involved in the
Company's initially public offering:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

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

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (5) JP Morgan Chase & Co.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering violated the securities laws by
failing to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
offering's registration statement and that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The Company noted that similar complaints have been filed against over
300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and
all such suits have been included in a single coordinated proceeding.  

The Company denied the allegations in the suit.  However, due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately
predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation.  


EAGLE BUILDING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Eagle Building Technologies, Inc. (OTC: EGBT) and Anthony M.
D'Amato in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida. The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between
April 18, 2001 and February 14, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
during the class period, the Company:

     (1) improperly recorded revenue from its construction business in
         India and made false and misleading statements regarding its
         India operations, and

     (2) made false and misleading statements regarding its post-
         September 11 business endeavors, including an airport baggage
         security system, mail sterilization technology, and money
         laundering detection software.

As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, Company stock price was
artificially inflated during the class period, trading as high as
$12.30. On the Company's February 14 announcement, the Company's stock
fell 68% to $1.44 on heavy trading.

For more details, contact Robert N. Kaplan or Shelley Thompson by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 800-290-1952
or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 by E-mail address:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:  
http://www.kaplanfox.com


ECOMETRY CORPORATION: FL Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed a securities class action against Delray Beach software
company Ecometry Corp. (Nasdaq: ECOM) and its officers, the South
Florida Business Journal reports.  The suit alleges that the Company
made misrepresentations and omissions related to the accounting for an
alleged December 1999 transaction with customer ToyTime.com.  

The court dismissed the suit on March 19, 2001, and set a deadline for
plaintiffs to file an amended suit on April 10, or a notice of appeal
from the order dismissing the complaint on April 18.  The Company said
plaintiffs neither filed an amended complaint, nor a notice of appeal,
leading to the suit's dismissal.


GILAT SATELLITE: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd.
(NASDAQ: GILTF) securities between November 13, 2000 and October 2,
2001, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing false and misleading statements throughout the
class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants obscured the true financial health of the Company as it
was maintained millions of dollars of impaired assets, which should
have been written off.

On November 13, 2000, the Company issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter of 2000, the period ending
September 30, 2000.  The Company represented that revenues for the
third quarter of 2000 were $135 million.  On March 12, 2001, the
Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the
fourth quarter of 2000 and fiscal year 2000, the period ending December
31, 2000, reporting revenues of $504.6 million for fiscal year 2000.

However, on October 2, 2001, the Company issued a press release to the
investing public, which stated that its financial results for the third
quarter of 2001 would be less than the previously announced guidance
and that the Company was taking additional charges.  The Company
reported that revenues for the third quarter were expected to be $80
million, compared to the May 14, 2001 announcement of $150 million.  
The Company also anticipated reporting a loss of $267 million.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Gilat.  


HIGH SPEED: Opposes Claims in Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
High Speed Access Corporation denied the allegations in a class action
suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and:

     (1) its Chief Financial Officer,

     (2) its former President,

     (3) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (4) JP Morgan Securities, Inc.,

     (5) CIBC World Markets Corporation, and

     (6) Banc of America Securities, Inc.,

The lawsuit alleges that the Company's registration statement, dated
June 3, 1999, and prospectus, dated June 4, 1999, for the issuance and
initial public offering of 13,000,000 shares of its common stock to
investors contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions, and
that the Company's four underwriters engaged in a pattern of conduct to
surreptitiously extract inflated commissions greater than those
disclosed in the offering materials, among other acts of misconduct.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims made therein.


HIGH SPEED: Faces Potential Suit Over Digital Chainsaw Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------------
High Speed Access Corporation faces a potential class action to be
filed by potential shareholders of Digital Chainsaw, which the Company
acquired in August 2000 through the payment of 3 million shares of its
common stock.

Late last year, the Company received two letters from an attorney
purporting to be counsel to certain former shareholders of Digital
Chainsaw.  The attorney indicated that his clients, and possibly other
former Digital Chainsaw shareholders were prepared to file a lawsuit
asserting various claims against the Company relating to the
acquisition, including claims relating to the non-payment of any earn
out consideration to former Digital Chainsaw shareholders.

The Company believes that all of the potential claims included in these
letters are without merit and intends to vigorously defend any lawsuit
related to these letters.


H&R BLOCK: Appeals Court Reverses Approval of Settlement in Loans Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
approval of a class action settlement in the suit against Beneficial
National Bank (NYSE: HI) and H&R Block (NYSE: HRB) arising out loans
made in anticipation of tax refunds.  

The effective annual interest rate on these loans frequently exceeds
100%, and the charges imposed on taxpayers frequently represent a
substantial part of the expected tax refunds. The refunds often
comprise most or all of a taxpayer's savings for that year.

Kirby McInerney argued that the settlement should be rejected and the
lower court judge replaced.  Other opponents of the settlement included
the Houston firm of Ellis, Carstarphen, Dougherty & Goldenthal P.C.,
and the Philadelphia firm of Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante,
Rubenstein & Coren, PC.

The Court of Appeals found, among other things, that "the district
judge abused his discretion in approving the settlement" and that
"representation of the class was almost certainly inadequate, an
independent reason for disapproving a settlement."  The court also
vacated an injunction against a Texas class action ready to go to trial
against H&R Block, and reassigned the action to a district judge other
than the one who had approved the overturned settlement.

For more information, contact Roger W. Kirby, Peter S. Linden or Joanne
M. Cicala by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
212-371-6600 by Fax: 212-751-2540 or by E-Mail: jcicala@kmslaw.com


INFORMAX INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Informax, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the
as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Dr. Alexander Titomirov, former Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Mr. Joseph Lehnen, former Chief Financial Officer, and

     (3) certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering

The suit alleges, among other things, violations of the securities laws
by failing to disclose alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
Company's initial public offering's registration statement.  The
Company, its officers and its underwriters are named in the complaint
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Company's
officers are also named in the suit under Section 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 under a control person theory of liability.  The
underwriter defendants are named in the complaint pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company is aware of similar complaints that have been filed against
more than 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings
since 1998, and all of these actions have been included in a single
coordinated proceeding.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and that it has
meritorious defenses to the suit.  The Company intends to defend the
suit vigorously.


INSWEB CORPORATION: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Insweb Corporation labeled "without merit" the securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
from July 22, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Hussein A. Enan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Darrell J. Ticehurst, a former officer and director,

     (3) Stephen I. Robertson, a former officer, and

     (4) three underwriters for the Company's initial public offering
         in July 1999.

The suit alleges violations of Section 11, 12(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectus incorporated in the
registration statements for the offering 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
         substantial blocks of the stock sold in the initial public
         offering, and

    (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate shares of the
         stock sold in the initial public offering to those customers
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional shares of Company stock in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices that were above the initial public offering
         price.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits relating to more than 250 other initial public offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes and the defendants' time to respond to the complaints
has been stayed pending a plan for further coordination.

The Company has not been served in this action.  However, the Company
intends to contest the suit vigorously.  The litigation is in the
preliminary stage, and the Company cannot yet predict its outcome.


JDS UNIPHASE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq: JDSU) and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased publicly traded securities of the Company between July
27, 1999 and July 26, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws.  The suit alleges,
among other things, that during the class period defendants were
motivated to inflate the value of the Company stock so that it could
make acquisitions using stock and so the individual defendants, who are
the top officers and directors of the Company, could sell their shares.

The Company also misrepresented the success of its largest
acquisitions, including Optical Coating Labs, Cronos Integrated
Microsystems, E-Tek Dynamics, and SDL, Inc. As a result of these
positive statements, Company stock traded as high as $146.32.

The individual defendants, all top officers and directors of the
Company, and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the
inflation, selling or disposing of 25.2 million shares of their stock
for proceeds of $2.1 billion. Then, on July 26, 2001, the Company
announced a restatement of March 31, 2001 results, the write-off of $44
billion in goodwill associated with its acquisitions, inventory write-
downs and that EPS for the 2001 fiscal year would be only $0.16 and
that it would incur a loss of $0.15 in its 2002 fiscal year. On this
news, Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90, or more than 94% lower
than the class period high of $146.32.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine or
Hae Sung Nam by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022
by Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com  


JDS UNIPHASE: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who acquired the common stock of JDS Uniphase Corporation
(NasdaqNM:JDSU) between September 28, 2000 and July 26, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder.  The suit alleges that the Company, with the acquiescence
of its auditors Ernst & Young, LLP, violated the federal securities
laws by failing to disclose that its earnings were artificially
inflated due to its failure to record write-downs of goodwill and other
intangible assets associated with the mergers between Uniphase Corp.,
OCLI, E-Tek, and SDL and JDS Uniphase long after it had become apparent
that such assets were being carried at unrealistically and misleadingly
high values on its balance sheet.

In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
that the 3.8:1 exchange ratio for the merger between the company and
SDL, Inc. was set based on an artificially high stock price of over
$100 per share, which in turn led the purchase price for SDL and
resultant carrying value of SDL's goodwill and other assets to be
artificially inflated.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's auditors, Ernst &
Young, LLP, violated the federal securities laws by issuing unqualified
audit opinions regarding the Company's financial statements that Ernst
& Young knew or recklessly failed to discover were false and
misleading.

The complaint alleges that the foregoing ultimately forced the Company
to restate its 3Q 01 results to reflect a write-down of $38.7 billion.
Such write-down was the largest in US history. When the truth regarding
the Company's misleading accounting became known, the complaint
alleges, Company share price fell from a class period high of $97.38 to
trade at prices as low as $7.90 on July 27, 2001 after the announcement
of the write-downs.

This suit differs from shareholder actions previously filed against the
Company in the US District Court for the Northern District of
California in that it names Ernst & Young as a defendant, asserts
additional causes of action under the common law of the State of New
York, sets forth the allegations described above regarding the improper
exchange ratio for the SDL merger that are not included in the
California actions, and sets forth a substantially different class
period.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher J. Gray
by Phone: 212-608-1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.lovellstewart.com


L90 INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of L90, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNTY) common
stock during the period between July 26, 2001 and March 12, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company is a
provider of marketing services.  The suit alleges that as part of their
effort to boost the price of Company stock, defendants misrepresented
the Company's true prospects in an effort to conceal the Company's
improper acts until they were able to conceal their fraud by selling
the Company to a third party prior to filing the Company's 10-K (due
March 31, 2002).

In order to overstate revenues and assets in its second and third
quarters of 2001, the Company violated generally accepted accounting
principles and SEC rules by engaging in improper "roundtrip"
transactions with HomeStore.com and its customers. These transactions
had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and assets.

On February 4, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled, "L90
Reports Regulatory Inquiries."  The press release stated in part: "L90,
Inc., an online media and direct marketing company, today announced
that the Company has received notice from the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the Commission is conducting an investigation into the
Company. In connection with this investigation, the Commission has
issued the Company and one of its directors subpoenas requesting
documents related primarily to the Company's financial records."

On this news the Company's shares plummeted by more than 50% the
following trading day and continued to plummet further in the weeks
that followed and defendants revealed further incriminating facts.

On March 12, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled, "L90
Provides Additional Information on Internal Investigation."  The press
release stated in part: "L90, Inc., an online media and direct
marketing company, today provided additional information on the status
of the ongoing internal investigation by the Company and the Audit
Committee of its board of directors in response to the previously
announced Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of the
Company, and the request for information from Nasdaq Listing
Investigations."

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


L90 INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
charging L90, Inc. (Nasdaq:LNTY) with misleading shareholders about its
business and financial condition.  The suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock between July 26,2001 and March 12,
2002.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  As part of their effort to boost the
price of Company stock, defendants misrepresented the Company's true
prospects in an effort to conceal the Company's improper acts until
they were able to conceal their fraud by selling the Company to a third
party prior to filing the Company's 10-K (due March 31, 2002).

In order to overstate revenues and assets in its second and third
quarters of 2001, the Company violated generally accepted accounting
principles and SEC rules by engaging in improper "round trip"
transactions with HomeStore.com and its customers.  These transactions
had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and assets.

On February 4, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled, "L90
Reports Regulatory Inquiries."  The press release stated in part, "L90,
Inc., an online media and direct marketing company, today announced
that the Company has received notice from the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the Commission is conducting an investigation into the
Company. In connection with this investigation, the Commission has
issued the Company and one of its directors subpoenas requesting
documents related primarily to the Company's financial records."  On
this news the Company's shares plummeted by more than 50% the following
trading day and continued to plummet further in the weeks that followed
and defendants revealed further incriminating facts.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Communications, Inc. face a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period from May 6, 1999 to December 6, 2000.  The suit also names
certain of the Company's officers and the underwriters for its initial
public offering (IPO) as defendants.

The complaint alleges undisclosed and improper practices by the
underwriters concerning the allocation of the Company's IPO shares, in
violation of the federal securities laws.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims against
it and will defend itself vigorously. In the opinion of management,
after consultation with legal counsel and based on currently available
information, the ultimate disposition of these matters is not expected
to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations, and hence no amounts have been
accrued for these cases.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX: MSS) and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock between August 1, 2001 and
February 14, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws.  The suit alleges,
among other things, that during the class period defendants issued a
series of false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial condition.

In addition, the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the offering misrepresented and omitted material facts
concerning the Company's financial results.  Furthermore, during the
class period, and in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles, defendants caused the Company to falsely report favorable
financial results by, among other things, improperly recognizing
revenues and improperly overstating inventories.

As a result, Company stock traded at artificially inflated levels
during the class period.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of all purchasers of Metawave Communications
Corporation (Nasdaq: MTWV) common stock during the period from April
24, 2001 and March 14, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants
the Company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial
officer.

The suit charges the defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The violations, as the
complaint alleges, stem from the issuance of allegedly false and
misleading financial statements and financial projections during the
class period, which had the effect of artificially-inflating the price
of Company shares.

On March 14, 2002, after the close of the markets, the Company issued a
press release disclosing a number of surprises concerning the Company,
including:

     (1) that it would restate its 2001 earnings, reducing revenue by
         $5 million to $7 million out of the $43.6 million of total
         revenue previously reported, a change of 11% to 15%, because
         of "unauthorized commitments" made to customers in Asia;

     (2) that it would terminate its SpotLight GSM product line due to
         "insufficient customer demand;"

     (3) that it would close its Taiwan facilities, cut its Chinese
         operation and reduce its United States workforce by 42% in an
         effort to lower operating expenses;

     (4) that the restructuring would result in a first quarter (2002)
         charge of $23 million to cover inventory and accounts
         receivable write-offs, employee severance, facilities
         closures, and other shutdown costs;

     (5) that it had fired its Chief Financial Officer, Stuart
         Fuhlendorf; and

     (6) that it had revised its first-quarter 2002 revenue guidance to
         about $6 million, well below the $8.5 million to $9 million
         range Wall Street had been led to expect for the Company's
         first quarter (2002) revenue.

After disclosure that the Company's current financial results would not
be as expected, and that previously-reported financial results would be
even lower than reported, its shares swiftly lost more than 70% of
their value.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


NET PERCEPTIONS: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Perceptions, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between April 22,
1999 through December 6, 2000.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Steven J. Snyder, then president and chief executive officer,

     (2) Thomas M. Donnelly, chief operation officer and chief
         financial officer,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., lead underwriter of the
         Company's April 1999 initial public offering (IPO), and

     (4) several other underwriters who participated in the IPO

The suit generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by not disclosing certain actions taken by the
underwriter defendants in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.

The suit alleges specifically that the underwriter defendants, with the
Company's direct participation and agreement and without disclosure
thereof, conspired to and did raise and increase their underwriters'
compensation and the market prices of the Company's common stock
following the Company's IPO by requiring their customers, in exchange
for receiving allocations of shares of the Company's common stock sold
in our initial public offering, to pay excessive commissions on
transactions in other securities and to purchase additional shares of
common stock in the initial public offering aftermarket at pre-
determined prices above the initial public offering price.

The suit has been assigned to the judge who is also the pretrial
coordinating judge for substantially similar lawsuits involving more
than 300 other issuers.  The Company believes that the allegations are
without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.  As
this litigation is in an initial stage, however, the Company is unable
to predict its outcome or its ultimate effect, if any, on its financial
condition.


NETWORK COMMERCE: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Commerce, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington in Seattle to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action pending against it, Dwayne M. Walker, its chief
executive officer, president, and chairman of the board, and its
underwriters.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period that begins on September 28,
1999 and ends on April 16, 2001, alleges violations of the federal
securities laws based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions made
by defendants to the market

In January 28, 2002, the Company and Mr. Walker filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint for failure to state a
claim on which legal relief can be granted.  Decision on that motion is
pending.

In addition to the consolidated suit, another class action was filed in
July 2001 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California, making similar allegations as those in the consolidated
suit.  That court dismissed the suit on January 28, 2002 for lack of
prosecution.

The Company and Mr. Walker intend to vigorously defend the suits, but
unfavorable resolution of these suits could have a material adverse
effect on the Company in one or more future periods.


NTL INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of NTL, Inc. (NYSE: NLI) between
August 9, 2000 and November 29, 2001, inclusive, against the Company
and:

     (1) George S. Blumenthal,

     (2) J. Barclay Knapp,

     (3) Steven Carter and

     (4) John F. Gregg

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities.

The suit alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements, which failed to
disclose, among other things:

     (i) that the Company was unable to effectively integrate its
         acquisitions and, as a result was experiencing substantial
         difficulties in operating its business;

    (ii) that the Company was not fully funded until 2003, and as a
         result of its massive debt burden would necessarily have to
         restructure its debt;

   (iii) that the Company was underreporting churn rates by failing to
         report terminations and by continuing to bill customers for
         accounts which they had terminated, thereby creating the false
         impression that the Company was retaining customers longer and
         that migrations were decreasing; and

    (iv) that the Company was improperly delaying the writedown of
         billions of dollars of impaired assets, thereby artificially
         inflating the Company's operating results.

Indeed, after the end of the class period, the Company announced that
it would write off over $11 billion of goodwill and other asset
impairments prior to reporting fourth quarter financial results, which
would result in an astounding loss per share for the fourth quarter
2001 of $46.46 per share.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NV
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchasepro.com, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
against it and a number of its current or former officers and
directors, alleging certain violations of federal securities laws, on
behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common
stock during defined periods.

A related shareholder derivative lawsuit is also pending in the
District Court for Clark County, Nevada, alleging various breaches of
fiduciary duty by certain of the Company's current or former officers
and directors and effectively alleging the same allegations which are
the subject of the federal securities class actions.

The Company believes that the claims in the federal and state lawsuits
are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PurchasePro.com, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending
against it and certain of its former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
relating to the Company's September 1999 initial public offering and
its February 2000 secondary offering.

The suit alleges the defendants violated federal securities laws in the
offering because they failed to disclose that its underwriters
solicited and received excessive commissions and allocated shares to
customers in exchange for the customers' promises to purchase
additional shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices above
the offering price, thus distorting and/or inflating the market price
for shares of the Company's common stock in the after-market.

The suit is part of the "IPO Allocation Securities Litigation" in
approximately 320 companies and over 30 underwriters have been sued in
actions alleging claims nearly identical to those alleged against the
Company.  The Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.


SEQUENOM INC.: Denies Securities Suits' Allegations in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sequenom, Inc. vows to vigorously defend against a securities class
action pending against the Company, certain of its current or former
officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial public
offering (IPO) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws because the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation
practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The suit is similar to other suits filed against hundreds of other
public companies that conducted initial public offerings, or IPOs, of
their common stock in the late 1990s in the same court.  While hundreds
of these lawsuits have been filed and served on various underwriters
and other issuers, to date, the complaint has not been served on the
Company or on any of our officers or directors named in the complaint.
The Company vehemently denied all material allegations in the suit.


STILLWATER MINING: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE: SWC) and certain of 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 the Company's common stock between April 20, 2001 and April
1, 2002.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of the Company's common stock.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the Company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
its financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The
complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things:

     (1) the Company improperly classified "mineralized material" as
         "probable reserves;"

     (2) defendants' improper manipulation of probable reserves
         overstated the Company's class period net income because
         defendants depreciated its plant and equipment costs according
         of the life of these reserves. If defendants had properly
         accounted for these reserves, depreciation would have occurred
         much faster; and

    (3) the reduction in probable reserves will likely result in an
        impairment charge, or a restatement of at least fiscal year
        2001 results.

Furthermore, defendants failed to disclose that the SEC had advised the
Company by mid- December 2001/ early January 2002 that its methodology
for the calculation of probable ore reserves was improper and would
have to be changed.

On April 2, 2002, when defendants belatedly disclosed that the
Company's accounting practices had been condemned by the SEC, the stock
dropped by 24% in one day on extraordinarily high volumes of 4,743,600
shares traded, vastly greater than the Company's average trading volume
of approximately 400,000 shares per day. The full extent of the
Company's losses is still unknown to the market, since the revision to
reserves could adversely impact 2001 net income, and result in a
downward financial restatement of prior quarters.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Barbara A. Podell 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 Web site:
http://www.bergermontague.com


THESTREET.COM: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
TheStreet.com intends to vigorously oppose a securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, certain of its former officers and
directors and a current director, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Chase H&Q,

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, and

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

The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering violated the securities laws by
failing to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
offering's registration statement.

The Company and certain of its former officers and directors and a
current director are named in the complaint pursuant to Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company is aware that similar complaints have been filed against
over 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998 and all such actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.  The Company.com intends to defend these actions
vigorously.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation.


VIRATA CORPORATION: Building Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Virata Corporation faces several securities class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock during the
period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The suit also
names as defendants the certain investment bank underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering and secondary public offering, and
various officers and directors of the Company.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing and selling the Company's common stock in those offerings
without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters had
solicited and received undisclosed and excessive commissions.

The Company is aware that other suits have been filed making similar
allegations regarding the initial public offerings of hundreds of other
companies that launched such offerings during 1999 and 2000.  All of
these lawsuits (including the suit against the Company) have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims against it and will defend itself
vigorously.


                               *********


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 2002.  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  * * *