---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, January 31, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 21

                             Headlines

AT&T: Case over Directory Assistance Is Stayed Pending FCC Decision
BANK ONE: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in IL
CAMPBELL SOUP: Cauley, Steven Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
COCA COLA: Judge Asked to Kill Waivers on Employment Racial Bias Case
DOUBLECLICK: Sued in CA for Violating Privacy Rights of Internet Users

FEN-PHEN: AHP Settles with Family of MA Bride Who Died from PPH
FEN-PHEN: Suit Filed In MS on Behalf of 6 Women against AHP Et. Al.
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Announces Settlement for Securities Lawsuit
IMA: States Its Intention to Defend Securities Lawsuit in Connecticut
KOCH INDUSTRIES: Suit over Oil Cheating Is a Brother V. Brother Case

LEGATO SYSTEMS: Dyer Donnelly Files Securities Lawsuit in California
LEGATO SYSTEMS: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
LEGATO SYSTEMS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Complaint in CA
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Complaint in NJ
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NJ

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Keller Rohrback Investigates Securities Violations
MOBIL OIL: Law Firm Urges to Reject Compensation Pact for Aust Air Fuel
NAVARRE CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit in MN
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Lieff, Cabraser Is Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
NINE WEST: Faces Antitrust Suit with Dept Stores; Case Will Go to Trial

PAYDAY LENDERS: Edelman, Combs Files Suits in Indianapolis V. 3 Lenders
SUNTERRA CORP: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Complaint in FL
SUNTERRA CORP: James V. Bashian Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida
SUNTERRA CORP: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in FL
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Analysts Say Medicaid Suits Won't Hurt Tobacco Debt

TRANSCRYPT INT’L: NE Ct Preliminarily OKs Securities Suit Settlement
V-ONE CORPORATION: Stull, Stull Files Securities Lawsuit in MD
V-ONE CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in MD

* GOP Signals On Patients' Bill of Rights Suggest Early Bill

                               *********

AT&T: Case over Directory Assistance Is Stayed Pending FCC Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh et al v. AT&T Corporation, No. 99-2161; United States District Court
(DNJ); opinion by Walls, U.S.D.J.; filed December 10, 1999.; (159
N.J.L.J. 237)

Where the thrust of plaintiffs' claim is that AT&T has failed to live up
to its FCC tariff obligation with respect to providing directory
assistance, their allegations of breach of contract, fraud and negligent
misrepresentation arise under federal law, and the matter is stayed
pending a determination by the Federal Communications Commission.

This matter is before the court on the motion by defendant AT&T
Corporation for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for failure to state any claim for
relief or, alternatively, on the grounds that the Federal Communications
Commission has primary jurisdiction over the case.

Plaintiffs filed an amended class-action complaint, which alleges that
defendant AT&T violates the tariffs that it is required to file with the
FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. * 203(a). Specifically, FCC Tariffs 1 (May 14,
1998) and 27 (November 25, 1998) require AT&T to provide "up to two
requests for listings within the area code dialed ... on each call to
Directory Assistance," for a charge of $1.40 per call.

Plaintiffs purport not to challenge the provisions of these tariffs,
including the applicable rate. Instead, they charge that AT&T, by means
of manipulative and deceptive acts, prevents its customers from availing
themselves of the second request. Plaintiffs allege that in order to
minimize time and expense, AT&T operators and recordings respond to
calls to Area Code Directory Assistance with the questions "What city,
please?" and "What listing, please?" Plaintiffs claim that each of these
questions "implies, and unfairly manipulates and misleads the customer
to believe, that the customer will have an opportunity for a second
information request after the customer receives a response to his or her
first request." However, they allege that AT&T provides no such
additional opportunity.

Plaintiffs also charge that AT&T refuses to provide a credit allowance
to its customers who are aware that they are entitled to two requests
and who would in fact request two phone numbers "if they had not been
prevented from doing so by AT&T's manipulative and misleading
procedure." They assert that although AT&T provides a telephone number
to call to request credits, neither the automated message menu nor a
human operator provides an avenue for a customer to receive credits in
return for the practice described above.

Plaintiffs Oh and Schatz, who have used AT&T's Area Code Directory
Assistance, claim to have been denied their right to a second listing.
They style six causes of action for (1) breach of contract, purportedly
based on AT&T's service contracts with themselves and other class
members; (2) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq.;
(3) common-law fraud, based on AT&T's purported misrepresentations that
plaintiffs were required to make one request at a time; (4) negligent
misrepresentation, due to AT&T's purported representation that
plaintiffs would have the opportunity to make a second request; (5)
violation of * 201(b) of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. *
201(b); and (6) injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief,
compensatory damages, treble damages pursuant to the NJCFA, prejudgment
interest on actual damages, an injunction to prevent AT&T from
continuing its challenged practices and costs and attorneys' fees.

Defendant, in moving for judgment, requests that the court dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim for relief or pursuant to the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

AT&T argues that plaintiffs' state-law claims must be dismissed pursuant
to the filed-tariff doctrine. Defendant claims that as a "common
carrier" it is required to file schedules of charges with the FCC
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. * 203(a); that such tariffs "exclusively govern
the legal relationship between AT&T and its subscribers," including
issues related to directory assistance calls; and that the plaintiffs
are wholly precluded under the filed-tariff doctrine from asserting
state-law claims concerning matters covered by the tariffs. Plaintiffs
object that this rule bars only state-law claims that purport to
contradict or supplement the filed schedules. They claim that, because
they do not challenge the tariff but instead seek to enforce AT&T's
obligations filed with the FCC, their state-law claims must be
sustained.

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086,
1093-96 (3d Cir. 1995), determined that a collections claim by MCI was
"based upon, and *drew* its life from," the tariff that it had filed
with the FCC. Judge McKee reasoned that because the carrier's claim
relied on the tariff, the cause of action should no longer be considered
a creature of state law.

This reasoning is persuasive and applicable here. The sole source of
plaintiffs' state-law claims is the set of tariffs filed by AT&T with
the FCC. Plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, the NJCFA, fraud and
negligent misrepresentation are grounded on their rights found in the
tariff to obtain two listings with each directory assistance call. The
thrust of each claim is that AT&T has failed to live up to its tariff
obligations.

Held: In accordance with Teleconcepts, plaintiffs' state-law claims
arise under federal law.

In addition to their purported state-law causes of action, plaintiffs
charge that AT&T's practices constitute an "unjust and unreasonable
practice" within the meaning of the Federal Communications Act: "All
charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
connection with *a* communication service, shall be just and reasonable,
and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is
unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful." 47 U.S.C. * 201(b).
The FCA creates a cause of action on behalf of any person claiming to be
damaged by a common carrier. 47 U.S.C. * 207. Such an aggrieved person
may choose to file a complaint with the FCC pursuant to * 208 or to
commence an action in any federal district court, but may not pursue
both remedies.

AT&T moves to dismiss this count, claiming that because it complied with
its duly filed tariff, and "*t*here is no allegation that AT&T fails to
provide two listings per Directory Assistance call upon request," its
actions are presumptively reasonable.

In contrast to defendant's characterization, plaintiffs claim that
AT&T's practice of prohibiting callers from making one request at the
beginning of a call and a later request at the end of the first listing
violates the applicable tariffs.

AT&T's defense that it has complied with the tariff is a mere factual
denial of the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint. Defendant's
motion to dismiss the FCA claim is denied on that basis.

However, defendant presents a more compelling argument that this court
should decline to decide the issues raised here: AT&T asserts that the
court should defer to the FCC under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, which was explained by the Third Circuit:

Under the doctrine, a court should refer a matter to an administrative
agency for resolution, even if the matter is otherwise properly before
the court, if it appears that the matter involves technical or policy
considerations which are beyond the court's ordinary competence and
within the agency's particular field of expertise. MCI Communications
Corp. v.

AT&T, 496 F.2d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 1974).

A court should consider four factors in deciding whether to defer to an
administrative agency: (1) whether the issues presented are within the
conventional expertise of judges; (2) whether the questions lie
peculiarly within the agency's discretion or require the exercise of
agency expertise; (3) whether there exists a danger of inconsistent
rulings; and (4) whether a prior application has been made to the
agency. AT&T Co. v. People's Network, Inc., 1993 WL 248165 (D.N.J.
1993).

Courts have consistently found that claims that allege unreasonable
practices in violation of * 201(b) fall within the primary jurisdiction
of the FCC. Plaintiffs' state-law claims, now recast as federal claims,
seek to enforce the same rights as the FCA -- their interests under
AT&T's tariffs. Resolution of all of the claims will evidently turn on
interpretation of AT&T's tariff obligations. Plaintiffs cannot maintain
a breach-of-contract action without reference to the tariffs, admittedly
the only contract term sought to be enforced. Likewise, their claims for
fraud and negligent misrepresentation turn on a finding that plaintiffs
were entitled to make two requests at specified times during a call;
this question necessitates an interpretation of the rights provided by
the tariffs.

Accordingly, this court refers this matter to the FCC for a
determination of defendant's liability and all other matters within its
jurisdiction. The action will be stayed until the FCC issues its
decision. Either party may petition to reactivate the case, if
appropriate, after the FCC has resolved the issues within its
jurisdiction.

For plaintiffs -- James V. Bashian. For defendant -- Robert D. Towey and
David G. Tomeo (Ravin, Sarasohn, Cook, Baumgarten, Fisch & Rosen) and
Patricia C. Lukens (AT&T Corporation). (New Jersey Law Journal, January
17, 2000)


BANK ONE: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Bank
One Corp. between Oct. 22, 1998 and Nov. 10, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by improperly overstating revenue and income from
late fees, penalties and interest in Bank One's credit card subsidiary,
as a result of the intentional failure to post credit card payments on
time. After a series of partial disclosures beginning on Aug. 24, 1999,
and ending on Nov. 10, 1999, the facts concerning defendants' conduct
became widely known, including in a report that First USA was the target
of an investigation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Following the disclosures, the stock price of Bank One plummeted from
its Class Period high of $63.563 per share to close at $34.625 per share
on Nov. 10, 1999.

For additional information concerning this lawsuit, please contact one
of the following attorneys: Steven J. Toll (stoll@cmht.com) or Julie
Goldsmith (jgoldsmith@cmht.com) of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C., 999 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. PH. telephone at
888/240-1238 or 206/521-0080.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Cauley, Steven Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Cauley, P.A filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all
purchasers of common stock of Campbell Soup Company during the period
November 18, 1997, through January 8, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Campbell and certain of its senior officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's improper recording of revenue from its
condensed soup sales. In particular, the complaint alleges that Campbell
claimed to have "sold" product to major distributors or resellers when
in actuality Campbell never shipped the product to its customers.
Campbell improperly claimed these sales in order to meet analysts'
earnings estimates for the Company. Because of the issuance of a series
of materially false and misleading statements the price of Campbell
common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

For more information regarding this lawsuit, please contact LAW OFFICES
OF STEVEN E. CAULEY, P.A. at 2200 N. Rodney Parham Road Suite 218,
Cypress Plaza Little Rock, AR 72212 or toll free at 1-888-551-9944 or
CauleyPA@aol.com via e-mail.


COCA COLA: Judge Asked to Kill Waivers on Employment Racial Bias Case
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge is being asked to prohibit Coca-Cola Co. from requiring
laid-off workers to stay out of a racial discrimination lawsuit if they
want enhanced severance packages.

Coke is requiring workers to sign waivers promising they will not join
the suit, which seeks class-action status. The planned 6,000 job cuts,
or 21 percent of the company's global work force, are already a
"tremendously painful event for many employees," and the company is
seizing on that "to impose a special burden on its African-American
employees," lawyers said in the motion filed in Atlanta. "Coca-Cola is
taking advantage of the economic vulnerability of African- American
employees affected by the widespread layoffs to coerce those employees
into giving up their rights to participate in this suit," the motion
added.

Coca-Cola spokesman Ben Deutsch said waiver forms targeting future
litigation are common in job reductions. He said the company
specifically included the race discrimination case in its release form
to make sure workers know exactly what rights they may be forgoing.

"Contrary to what the plaintiffs' counsel are saying, because of the
pending litigation we went above and beyond what is required by law to
make prospective class members aware of the situation and to encourage
them to talk to plaintiffs' counsel before signing the release," Deutsch
said. He added, "Our goal is to treat everyone who is affected by this
realignment fairly and equally."

The company is using a combination of measures to trim jobs: early
retirement, outsourcing and outright elimination of other jobs. The
positions run the gamut, including vice presidents, attorneys,
engineers, project managers and staff assistants.

In the lawsuit, four current and four former employees contend Coca-Cola
has discriminated against African-Americans in pay, promotions and
performance evaluations. The lawsuit seeks to expand the case to
class-action status and represent more than 2,000 black employees in the
United States.

Coca-Cola has strongly denied allegations in the complaint. It also
opposes the plaintiffs' attempts to make it a class-action lawsuit

Employees in the job reduction announced on January 26 are being given
45 days to sign the waiver forms if they want to receive "enhanced
severance payments.
According to the waivers, employees must agree not to file claims
against Coca-Cola under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, the Age Discrimination Act and other
discrimination laws. The forms require employees to agree to "no longer
participate in or benefit from" the race discrimination lawsuit "in any
way."

Atlanta lawyer Lamar Mixson, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said
prior court orders prohibit the company from communicating with
prospective class members about agreeing not to participate in the
lawsuit. "That's what this is," Mixson said of the waiver form. "To us,
it's shocking and extremely troublesome."

Coca-Cola apparently attempted to cure this problem by advising affected
employees to consult an attorney before signing the form. The form names
the two local firms --- Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore and Deville,
Milhollin & Voyles --- and provides their phone numbers as well.

But Mixson said the plaintiffs' legal team is concerned employees who
sign the forms also may be barred from testifying or providing evidence
in support of the plaintiffs.

Steven Kaminshine, a Georgia State University professor specializing in
employment law, said Coca-Cola's waiver form raises interesting, and
unusual, legal issues.

While he acknowledges it is common for companies to offer waivers as
part of severance packages, Kaminshine said, "I don't think it's common
for those waivers to specifically refer to a pending discrimination suit
of the kind involved here." He noted that Coke's waiver is particularly
unusual because the discrimination lawsuit appears to be unrelated to
the events giving rise to the job reductions. "The argument in support
of the validity of the waiver is that the laid-off employees are being
offered a benefit they were not entitled to and that Coke is simply
asking the employees to give something in return --- namely the
relinquishment of all claims," he said. "The apparent problem here,
though, is that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer
from providing a benefit in a discriminatory manner, " Kaminshine added.
"And it's arguably discriminatory for Coke to deny severance to black
employees who wish to participate in the pending race discrimination
case, while white employees face no such dilemma."

Mixson said plaintiffs want a quick hearing on the issue before U.S.
District Judge Richard Story. The lawyers also are engaged in intensive
fact- finding to determine whether the company's restructuring is having
a disparate impact on African-American employees, Mixson said.

In another development on January 27, a federal magistrate has ordered
Coca-Cola to release three documents to plaintiffs that the company had
contended were privileged. Among those documents is a 1995 analysis of
Coke's employment practices with respect to African-American employees.
The analysis was authored by Carl Ware, Coke's highest-ranking black
executive. Ware was recently promoted from heading the company's Africa
operations to overseeing a newly created global public affairs and
administration division.

U.S. Magistrate E. Clayton Scofield III rejected Coke's arguments that
plaintiffs should not see the document. But Scofield also ruled that
dozens of other documents do not have to be turned over to plaintiffs.

The judge agreed with Coke's arguments that those documents are
protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines. The
report that both sides are arguing over has not been made available to
the public. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, January 28, 2000)


DOUBLECLICK: Sued in CA for Violating Privacy Rights of Internet Users
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A California woman sued Doubleclick on January 27 on behalf of the
General Public of the State of California, charging that the Internet's
largest advertising company is unlawfully obtaining and selling
consumers' highly private personal information. The lawsuit was filed in
California Superior Court - Marin County.

The lawsuit, entitled Judnick v. Doubleclick, Inc., alleges that
Doubleclick employs sophisticated computer technology, known as
"cookies," to identify Internet users, track and record their Internet
use and the Internet Web Sites they visit, and obtain a plethora of
highly confidential and personal information about them without their
consent. The information obtained, the suit alleges, includes such
sensitive items as names, addresses, ages, shopping patterns and
histories and financial information.

According to the lawsuit, Doubleclick has represented to the General
Public that it was not collecting personal and identifying information
and that it gives privacy interests of Internet users, "paramount
importance." Last year, however, Doubleclick acquired Abacus Direct
Corporation ("Abacus"), a direct-marketing services company, which
maintains a huge database of personal information for ninety percent
(90%) of American households. The lawsuit alleges that Doubleclick then
combined the power of its cookie technology with the information it
acquired to create a sophisticated and highly intrusive means of
collecting and cross-referencing private personal information without
the knowing consent of Internet users.

"Doubleclick has an obligation to the General Public using the Internet
to truthfully and adequately inform them about what Doubleclick is
taking from them, namely, their personal, private information. Internet
users have a right to privacy and to be free from false and misleading
advertising, protected by the laws of the State of California. Even if
Doubleclick provides warnings, such warnings give no protection to many
unsophisticated web-surfers. One wrong click and the originally
anonymous cookie becomes a window into that consumer's private life.
Consumers must be allowed to first give their conscious, informed and
affirmative consent before Doubleclick is given access to their private,
personal information." said Ira Rothken, an attorney representing
Hariett M. Judnick, on behalf of the General Public of California.

The Plaintiff is requesting an injunction against Doubleclick, stopping
them from using technology to collect personal information without prior
written consent of the Internet user, providing a means for the Internet
user to destroy mistakenly gathered private information and requiring
Doubleclick to destroy all records obtained without a consumer's knowing
consent.

If you wish to discuss this case or have any questions please contact
plaintiff's lead counsel, Ira Rothken of The Rothken Law Firm
(http://www.techfirm.com)at 415-924-4250 or via e-mail at
ira@techfirm.com


FEN-PHEN: AHP Settles with Family of MA Bride Who Died from PPH
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Home Products (AHP) settled on January 27 a high-profile
lawsuit brought by the family of a Massachusetts woman who died after
taking the diet drug combination Fen-phen to lose weight for her
wedding.

The 30-year-old bride died in 1997 of a rare lung disease, primary
pulmonary hypertension (PPH) that researchers say is linked to Fen-phen.
Last year, American Home announced a $ 4.83 billion settlement - the
largest in history - for a class action suit brought against it by
Fen-phen users. That settlement, however, covers only patients who
suffered heart valve damage - not victims of PPH.

The more lawsuits brought against AHP for conditions not covered in that
settlement, and the more patients who opt out of the class-action deal,
the greater the final cost to AHP. Several hundred takers of Fen-phen
are believed to have come down with PPH, although AHP says there are
fewer than 100 PPH lawsuits outstanding. In December, the company
settled a Mississippi class-action suit brought by 1,400 Fen-phen users.
That case involved heart-valve damage alone.

A substantial portion of the undisclosed Massachusetts settlement will
be used to fund a PPH research foundation in the name of the deceased
Mary Linnen.

The company announced a merger with Warner-Lambert last November, but
Warner is now talking to Pfizer instead. If Warner and Pfizer tie up, it
would be AHP's third failed merger attempt. Analysts say other
interested companies are likely to wait until uncertainty over the
litigation has been cleared up and AHP's total liability is known.
(Financial Times (London), January 28, 2000)


FEN-PHEN: Suit Filed In MS on Behalf of 6 Women against AHP Et. Al.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On the heels a successful damage suit trial in Fayette against fen-phen
maker American Home Products, attorneys are again turning to a
Mississippi court with claims of health damage caused by the diet drug.
The latest legal action was filed with Noxubee County Circuit Court on
behalf of six women. The suit comes only four weeks after a Jefferson
County jury awarded about $ 400 million to plaintiffs who made similar
claims against American Home Products.

Attorney Wilbur O. Colom of Columbus said the latest lawsuit seeks a
larger award, which he said should send diet pill manufacturers a strong
message.

American Home, pharmaceutical companies Wyeth-Ayerst and SmithKline
Beecham and Savon Drug Stores are among the 12 defendants named in the
new lawsuit. (Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL), January 22, 2000)


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Announces Settlement for Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health Management Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: HMSY) announced on January 27
settlements in two lawsuits -- one a proposed settlement of a class
action alleging violations of the federal securities laws, and the other
a binding settlement reached in an unrelated action brought by a
competitor alleging copyright and trademark infringement. In connection
with the proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit, the Company
has recorded a charge of $845,000 in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
1999. The other lawsuit was settled without any payments by the Company.
After giving effect to the charge accrued in connection with the
proposed class action settlement, the Company's revised diluted earnings
per share for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 1999 were $0.12
and $0.43, respectively, in line with analysts' original expectations
and consensus estimates for the period.

As previously reported, during 1997, five purported class action
lawsuits (which subsequently were consolidated into a single proceeding)
were commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its present and
former officers and directors alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. On December 20, 1999, the parties reached a
tentative agreement on the principal terms of settlement of the
litigation against all defendants. Pursuant to this understanding,
without admitting any wrongdoing, certain of the defendants have agreed
to pay, in complete settlement of this lawsuit, the sum of $4,500,000,
not less than 75 percent of which will be paid by the Company's
insurance carriers. The Company has recorded a charge of $845,000 for
its fiscal year ended October 31, 1999 related to this proposed
settlement. The proposed settlement is subject to execution of a final
settlement agreement and approval of the Court. In the event a final
settlement is not consummated, the Company intends to resubmit a motion
to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint and to continue its
vigorous defense of the lawsuit.

Also as previously reported, in June 1998, MedE America Corp.
(subsequently acquired by Healtheon/Web MD) commenced a lawsuit against
the Company and others in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In its complaint, plaintiff alleged
copyright infringement and other violations of its rights relating to
the Company's development and sale of certain computer software. This
matter was referred to a Court-appointed Mediator, who met with the
parties in the context of non-binding mediation. The Mediator assisted
in negotiating a settlement of this case, which entails no payment by
the Company, dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, and an
acknowledgment by plaintiff, after review and access to additional
information, that its copyright and trademark infringement claims were
without merit.


IMA: States Its Intention to Defend Securities Lawsuit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IMA (NASDAQ: IMAA) said on January 27 that a lawsuit styled as a
shareholder class action has been filed against it and two of its
officers in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut. The complaint
alleges that the Company purportedly violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements and concealing
material adverse facts during the period between August 12, 1999 and
November 18, 1999. The Company has reviewed the complaint and believes
that it is without merit. The Company intends to defend the case
vigorously.

KOCH INDUSTRIES: Suit over Oil Cheating Is a Brother V. Brother Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Okla. jury finds that Koch Industries cheated producers. In a bitter
whistleblower fight that pitted Bill Koch against his brother Charles,
the chief executive of Koch Industries, a jury has found that the oil
company deliberately cheated oil producers -- a verdict that could cost
the nation's second-largest privately held company as much as $ 214
million.

Plaintiff Bill Koch alleged that the family company falsified
measurements in the field, stealing millions of barrels of oil from
producers and royalty owners on mostly federal and American Indian-owned
land. The suit was filed under the False Claims Act, meaning that Bill
Koch and his co-plaintiff, Bill Presley, stand to gain up to 30% of the
court award. Neither the government nor the Indians joined the suit, but
the balance will go to the government.

Plaintiffs' attorney Timothy P. Irving, of the San Diego office of
Washington, D.C.'s Ross, Dixon & Bell L.L.P., said that the most
damaging evidence was budget and profit plans in which the company was
budgeting for more oil than it had paid for.

                            Systematic Bias

"Our response is that it's OK to be a little inaccurate, but the
inaccuracies should balance out over time," Mr. Irving said. "But they
were over every year, and you can't have that without a systematic bias
in your favor."

The defense said that it is difficult to be completely accurate in
measuring crude oil and that the excess oil was only a tiny fraction of
the oil collected. David Luce, Koch's in-house counsel, said that the
company was "remarkably close" to other oil companies and asserted,
"Overages are certainly not uncommon in this business." He said he was
puzzled by the jury verdict since many producers testified that they did
not believe Koch had cheated them.

A date has not yet been set for a hearing for the penalty phase, but
attorney fees and costs will be awarded in addition to the damages and
penalties. U.S. ex rel. Koch v. Koch Industries, No. 91 CV-763 (N.D.
Okla.).

Four more suits, including one that's 4 years old, have been filed in
Texas, North Dakota and Oklahoma against Koch, alleging unpaid-for
overages. (The National Law Journal, January 17, 2000)


LEGATO SYSTEMS: Dyer Donnelly Files Securities Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver-based law firm of Dyer Donnelly filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Legato
Systems, Inc. between October 21, 1999, and January 19, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Legato and certain of its officers with violations
of the federal securities laws by making misrepresentations about the
Company's business, earnings growth, and financial statements, as well
as its ability to continue to achieve profitable growth. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, the individual defendants (Louis
C. Cole, Kent D. Smith, Stephen C. Wise and Nora M. Denzel), who
controlled and were senior officers of Legato, engaged in a scheme to
conceal Legato's badly flagging growth to prevent the decline in the
price of Legato stock in order to: (i) use Legato's artificially
inflated stock as currency to fund the Company's acquisition of
companies in stock- for-stock transactions; and (ii) receive $11.5
million in insider trading proceeds.

For more details regarding this lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's
Counsel, Jeff Berens of Dyer Donnelly at 303/861-3003 or toll-free at
800/711-6483 or JBerens@DyerDonnelly.com via e-mail.


LEGATO SYSTEMS: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP filed a securities class lawsuit in the
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Legato
Systems, Inc. common stock between October 21, 1999 and January 19,
2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Legato and the Individual Defendants (Louis C.
Cole, Kent D. Smith, Stephen C. Wise and Nora M. Denzel) who controlled
and were senior officers of Legato, with violations of certain of the
federal securities laws and regulations. The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period the defendants engaged in a scheme to conceal
Legato's flagging growth in an effort to prevent a decline in the price
of Legato stock in order to, among other things, (i) use Legato's
artificially inflated stock as currency to fund the Company's
acquisition of companies in stock- for-stock transactions; and (ii) reap
more than $11.7 million in insider trading proceeds. On January 19,
2000, Legato revealed that it would restate its third quarter earnings
and would fall desperately short of meeting its forecasted earnings for
its 1999 fourth quarter. This revelation caused trading in Legato stock
to be halted on NASDAQ and ultimately the stock plummeted to $29 per
share in after-hours trading, a decline of 63% from its Class Period
high.

For additional information on the above mentioned lawsuit, please
contact Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Laurence D. King, Esq., Christine M.
Comas, Esq., Adrienne L. Valencia, Esq. of KAPLAN, KILSHEIMER & FOX LLP,
New York; Telephone: 800/290-1952 or 212/687-1980; Fax: 212/87- 7714;
E-mail address: mail@kkf-law.com or visit Website at
http://www.kkf-law.com


LEGATO SYSTEMS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Complaint in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Legato
Systems, Inc. between October 20, 1999 and January 19, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Legato and certain of its officers violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by improperly recording revenue on
three contracts during the third and fourth quarters of 1999, thereby
causing the members of the class to purchase stock at artificially
inflated price.

For additional information concerning this complaint, please contact
Andrew M. Schatz or Jeffrey S. Nobel of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. toll free
at (800) 797-5499, or by e-mail at SN06106@aol.com or visit website at
http://www.snlaw.net


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Complaint in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of Lucent Technologies, Inc.
at artificially inflated prices during the period October 27, 1999
through January 6, 2000 and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint charges Lucent and certain of its officers with violations
of federal securities laws by making misrepresentations about the
Company's business, earnings growth, and financial statements, as well
as its ability to continue to achieve profitable growth. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, Lucent led the market to believe
that its plan to restructure its operations into four divisions would
produce consistently more profitable results. Based significantly on
guidance provided by the Company, the price of Lucent stock continued to
rise throughout the Class Period reaching a high of over $84.00 per
share on December 9, 1999. Then, on January 6, 2000, Lucent revealed
that results for the first fiscal quarter of 2000 would fall materially
short of analysts' expectations. The complaint further alleges that,
contrary to the Company's representations during the Class Period,
demand for Lucent's products and the Company's profit margins were
declining, its costs were increasing, and it had failed to supply
products in sufficient quantities to meet market demand. These
revelations caused the price of Lucent common stock to fall to $52.19, a
decline in 38% from its Class Period high.

For more information regarding this lawsuit, please contact Robert P.
Frutkin, Esquire, Barbara A. Podell, Esquire of SAVETT FRUTKIN PODELL &
RYAN, P.C. on 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19106;
Telephone at (800) 993-3233 or E-mail at sfprpc@op.net


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Lucent Technologies, Inc. from October
27, 1999 through January 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Lucent and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's deteriorating financial condition. During the Class Period,
Lucent failed to disclose that demand for the Company's products and its
profit margins were declining, the Company's costs were increasing, and
that Lucent had failed to supply products in sufficient quantities to
meet market demand.

For more details concerning the above mentioned lawsuit, please contact
Stuart L. Berman, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP toll free at
888/299-7706 or 610/667-7706, or at info@sbclasslaw.com via e-mail or
visit website at http://www.sbclasslaw.com


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Keller Rohrback Investigates Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP's Complex Litigation Group is investigating charges
against McDermott International, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors for violation of federal securities laws on behalf of those
persons who purchased McDermott securities between May 21, 1999, and
November 11, 1999, inclusive.

Complaints charge defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Defendants are alleged to have issued a series of false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's estimated liability for
asbestos-related product liability claims relating to its now defunct
boiler division. Complaints further allege that the material
under-reporting of the Company's reasonable, expectant liability for
these claims allowed defendants to artificially inflate the Company's
earnings.

For more information regarding this investigation, you may contact
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. (Lynn L. Sarko or Elizabeth Leland, Esq.) toll
free at 800/776-6044, or investor@kellerrohrback.com via e-mail.


MOBIL OIL: Law Firm Urges Reject of Compensation Pact for Aust Air Fuel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobil Oil Australia Ltd. announced on January 28 a compensation program
for customers hit by a fuel contamination crisis that kept 5,000 light
aircraft grounded for more than two weeks, reported by AP Worldstream on
January 28.

Mobil did not put a value on the compensation, which covers aircraft
owners who incurred losses directly as a result of the groundings.

''It is Mobil's intention to fairly compensate its customers for their
direct business losses resulting from the avgas contamination issue,''
Mobil, a subsidiary of U.S.-based Mobil Exxon Corp., said in a
statement. ''Those covered by this program include commercial aircraft
owners and operators; their employees and closely held contractors; and
those who provide them with flights operations services; private
aircraft owners; and others who earn income directly from their use of
aircraft.''

The small aircraft were ordered grounded over concern that batches of
airplane fuel made by Mobil could clog engines. Thousands of Australians
living in the remote and sparsely populated Outback rely on light
aircraft for everything from delivering mail to rounding up cattle and
evacuating medical emergencies.

Mobil spokesman Alan Bailey said the compensation package meant
customers would not need to take legal action to recoup losses. Two
separate class action suits were filed in Australian courts, one seeking
100 million dollars (U.S $ 66 million) and the other unspecified damages
for aircraft owners. ''It is expected that in exchange for payments out
of the program there will be an undertaking given not to pursue any
legal action,'' Bailey said.

Ten days ago, Mobil Oil Australia Ltd. also announced a 15 million
dollar (U.S. $ 9.8 million) hardship fund which could be drawn on by
customers with urgent financial problems caused by the groundings.

     Mobil Denies Compensation Is a Bid to Avoid Legal Action

According to AAP Newsfeed, Mobil denied on January 28 its compensation
package for firms hit by the fuel contamination crisis was a "cynical
attempt" at avoiding class actions.

Mobil is facing two class action suits over the crisis, which grounded
5,000 light aircraft for several weeks.

"It is expected that in exchange for payments out of the program there
will be an undertaking given not to pursue any legal action," Mr Bailey
said. "I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that this is a cynical
attempt to avoid class actions. "Clearly, we prefer to deal directly
with our customers on this - we think it's in their best interests as
well as ours."

Asked if what Mobil was offering was effectively a blank cheque, Mr
Bailey said: "We have no ceiling, if you like, on the amount we're
talking about. "We obviously are not aware of the full details of the
losses that have been suffered by all our customers across the range of
claimants that are eligible for this program."

Referring to the $15 million hardship package Mobil announced 10 days
ago as a program established especially for business losses, Mr Bailey
said, "Any application for funds under the $15 million hardship program
would not involve the claimants in any waiver of their rights to pursue
legal action for further claims." "But clearly, what we are now talking
about is effectively a complete compensation for the business losses
they have suffered and in return for that we would not expect people to
continue to pursue a legal claim for further support."

He warned that compensation payments would inevitably be slowed down by
class actions.

Mobil will manage the program with the assistance of a firm with
extensive experience in claims administration and independent auditors
will oversee the process.

Mobil has 20 business days to consider each complete and fully
documented claim and to make an offer of final compensation to the
claimant. If the offer is not accepted, the matter will be referred to
an independent mediator to resolve. "If a resolution is not reached
within 15 business days after the mediation has taken place, the
claimant is able to pursue alternative action against Mobil."

      Law Firm Urges Clients To Reject Mobil Compensation Offer

Maurice Blackburn Cashman partner Bernard Murphy said on January 28 it
would urge its clients to reject Mobil's business compensation package
for parties affected by the contaminated fuel crisis, according to AAP
Newsfeed. The law firm is representing about 3,000 pilots and firms.

"We will be advising our clients to reject the compensation proposal,
primarily on two grounds," Mr Murphy said. The first involved what he
said was the complete absence of independence in the process. "Mobil,
which committed the negligence, is also seeking to overview who gets
paid and what they get paid." "And you need to have someone independent
doing that - it needs to be a court, or someone agreed between both
sides," he said. The second point involved an attempt by Mobil to
short-change people and avoid paying full compensation. "They say in
their release that they will pay for direct business losses.” “But in
law they're liable for all business losses - direct and indirect," he
added.

In response to Mobil's latest proposal, Maurice Blackburn and Cashman
said it would be asking the court for a speedy trial. The case is due
for a directions hearing in the Federal Court on March 1. "We are going
to have to file documents in the court on Monday, seeking that that date
be brought forward and we get a speedy trial. "We are not going to wait
until March 1 to make an application. We are going to do it now.
Slater & Gordon Sydney law firm partner Andrew Grech, who is
representing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, warned other
aviation businesses to carefully consider Mobil's offer.

Mr Grech said Mobil would decide both the eligibility and size of
compensation payments. He said the process should be totally independent
and free from possible interference from Mobil. "Subject to going over
the detail, they (claimants) should preserve their interests by
remaining in the class action until they are fully aware of what's being
offered," Mr Grech said.

Mr Grech said he was still scrutinising Mobil's offer and the pilots'
association was still consulting members about their options.

"Unfortunately, Mobil has decided to go ahead with this announcement
without any consultation," Mr Grech said.


NAVARRE CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of investors who bought Navarre Corp. stock between
November 25, 1998 and December 9, 1998.

The lawsuit charges Navarre and certain officers of the Company, with
violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States.
The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued a series of false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the spinning
off of a majority - owned subsidiary of the Company. The complaint
alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements artificially
inflated the price of the Company's stock during the Class Period and
that certain insiders took advantage of their Inside knowledge of this
inflation to sell significant amounts of their personal Company holdings
for profits of over $6.3 million.

For more information regarding this lawsuit, please contact Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York,
New York 10016, by telephone at 800-575-0735 (Michael Miske, George
Peters, Gregory Nespole, Esq., Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. or Shane T.
Rowley, Esq.), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit the website
at http://www.whafh.com


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Lieff, Cabraser Is Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William Alsup on January 25 appointed Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein as lead plaintiff counsel in the hotly
contested and potentially lucrative securities class action against
Network Associates Inc.

It was the latest and probably last twist in the battle for lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiffs counsel in the suit against the Santa
Clara-based antivirus software maker, which is accused of lying about
its financial health to improperly inflate its stock price.

Two months ago, Alsup appointed the City of Philadelphia's pension fund
as lead plaintiff but with the novel proviso that it could not choose
its own plaintiffs firm. Instead, Alsup ordered, the pension fund had to
put the lead counsel cudgel out to bid.

The pension fund wrote the judge back saying it did not want to serve as
lead plaintiff if it could not select its own lawyers. Another
institutional investor said the same thing, so Alsup appointed retired
San Jose lawyer Robert Vatuone as lead plaintiff last month. He also
ordered Vatuone -- who at the time was represented by James McManis of
McManis, Faulkner & Morgan and Allen Ruby of Ruby & Schofield -- to put
the lead counsel position out to bid.

According to Alsup, Vatuone chose to go with Lieff, Cabraser. "In making
the selection, the predominant factors were relevant trial and
securities litigation experience and attractive fee options," Alsup
wrote. Lieff, Cabraser's fee agreement is under seal, and Alsup ordered
everybody associated with the case to keep their mouths shut. Alsup also
said he was appointing the San Francisco firm contingent upon name
partner Richard Heimann conducting "all important depositions and court
hearings." Judge Stays Order Against Gonzalez By Dennis J. Opatrny

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Robert Dondero has stayed a
contempt-of- court order directing Deputy Public Defender Matthew
Gonzalez to surrender on January 28 and begin serving a five-day jail
sentence. Dondero issued the stay on January 27 at the request of
Gonzalez's lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Christopher Gauger. Attorney
James Harrigan, Sheriff Michael Hennessey's office legal adviser, was
then served with the order, Gauger said.

Dondero, the criminal master calendar judge at the Hall of Justice, will
probably set up a briefing schedule, but Gauger said he was uncertain
who would be required to file briefs. Gauger said he and attorney
Randall Knox, Gonzalez's other lawyer, will draft the deputy PD's papers
to explain the situation to the judge.

Harrigan said the Sheriff's Department was served, since it was ordered
by Superior Court Judge Perker Meeks to take Gonzalez into custody.
Harrigan said the sheriff has the ticklish problem of providing
"specialized housing" for Gonzalez if he winds up spending five days in
jail. Gonzalez would be jailed under a civil commitment, which means he
must be segregated from criminal inmates and housed in a single cell,
Harrigan said.

Meeks held Gonzalez in contempt after the PD asked him what side of the
bed he got up on. The two had been jousting in a preliminary hearing
over discovery. The judge also said Gonzalez pointed his finger at him,
which the PD denied.

Deputy City Attorney Marc Slavin said his office usually represents
judges when they need legal counsel. But, he said, no one has contacted
his office yet on behalf of Meeks. "We haven't been served yet, but if
it escalates, I'm sure we will be," Slavin said. (The Recorder, January
28, 2000)


NINE WEST: Faces Antitrust Suit with Dept Stores; Case Will Go to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A civil class action suit brought against Nine West Group Inc. and 10
major department stores alleging price-fixing on women's shoes can
proceed to trial, following a ruling by a Southern District judge.

Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. rejected several arguments for dismissal
of the case made by attorneys for the shoe maker and retailer as well
co-defendants Bloomingdale's Inc., Macy's East and eight other stores in
In re Nine West Shoes Antitrust Litigation, 99 Civ. 0245.

The suit before Judge Parker is the consolidation of 25 class actions
filed against Nine West last year. The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of
themselves and other customers who bought shoes at department stores and
Nine West retail outlets after Jan. 1, 1988.

The complaint, made under the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 15 et seq.,
charges that Nine West, the department stores and some unnamed
co-conspirators engaged in vertical and horizontal price-fixing on
shoes. One out of every five pairs of women's shoes sold in America is
made by Nine West.

The complaint says that representatives of Nine West and their direct
competitors, the department stores, met at semi-annual trade shows,
where they fixed minimum retail prices on shoes for the upcoming season,
and identified which styles would be sold at a discount and at what date
the sales would occur.

The conspiracy, plaintiffs charge, was enforced against other Nine West
retailers "through a far-ranging system of policing and coercion,"
including threats to cut off or delay shipments to stores that did not
adhere to the prices set by Nine West. The result, they claimed, was
that the company was able to keep the prices of 12 brands of shoes,
including brands such as Calvin Klein and Pappagallo, artificially high.

Nine West, which was purchased last year by Jones Apparel Group Inc.,
moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted and for failure to plead fraud with particularity.

Nine West also said that even if customers paid higher prices than they
would have paid absent the conspiracy, Nine West's 20 percent share of
the overall shoe market was insufficient to allege antitrust injury. The
plaintiffs, the company said, always had the option of buying shoes in
other stores.

But Judge Parker, in a 28-page opinion, said that both vertical minimum
price-fixing schemes and horizontal price-fixing are per se violations
of the antitrust laws. "Case law teaches that consumers are not required
to prove market power in cases involving per se violations of antitrust
laws," Judge Parker said.

                          Lack of Specificity

Nine West argued the complaint's lack of specificity left them without
sufficient notice of the claims against them. The company tried to
persuade Judge Parker that the plaintiffs should have detailed the
conduct of each defendant and state, in the judge's words, "which stores
participated in which meetings in furtherance of the conspiracy."

But Judge Parker found that the plaintiffs had met their burden by
filing a complaint that alleged concerted action by two or more persons
that restrains trade.

Joshua N. Rubin, of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, is one of five co-lead
counsel for plaintiffs. The defendants are represented by nine different
law firms. (New York Law Journal, January 18, 2000)


PAYDAY LENDERS: Edelman, Combs Files Suits in Indianapolis V. 3 Lenders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago law firm of Edelman, Combs & Latturner and Indianapolis
attorney Clifford Shepard have filed class action lawsuits against three
more Indiana high-interest "payday lenders". Wilson v. Check Into Cash
of Indiana, LLC, IP00-0166C-H/G (S.D.Ind.), Smith v. All Checks Cashed,
Inc., IP00-0165C-T/G (S.D.Ind.) and Hudson v. GIRT, Inc., IP00-0163C-M/S
(S.D.Ind.) were filed in the federal district court in Indianapolis.

The complaints allege violation of the Truth in Lending Act and Indiana
law in connection with ``payday loans.'' Each lawsuit alleges failure to
comply with the disclosure requirements of the federal Truth in Lending
Act and the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code.

The Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code (i) prohibits lenders from
charging interest of more than 36% per annum interest, (ii) allows a
flat fee not exceeding $33, and (iii) prohibits lenders from using
multiple agreements to obtain more finance charges than would otherwise
be permitted. Plaintiffs allege that by imposing a finance charge that
purports to be justified by the $33 exception to the general 36%
limitation on a series of two-week loans -- producing finance charges in
the hundreds of dollars and an effective annual percentage rate in
triple digits -- the lenders violated the rate restrictions in the
Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code.

A survey conducted by the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions
disclosed that the average payday loan borrower "rolls over" her loan
about 10 times, so that the loan actually remains outstanding for 5-6
months. The average annual percentage rate was 498.73%, or more than 10
times the 36% maximum. The average finance charge was $27.29 for each
loan or rollover, showing that the lenders tried to use the $33
exception on each loan/rollover. One borrower "rolled over" her loan 66
times, or for about three years. A survey conducted by the Illinois
Department of Financial Institutions produced similar results. "Payday
lenders" are thus well aware of the fact that borrowers generally cannot
pay their loans off in two weeks.

The complaints also allege violation of another Indiana statute that
makes it unlawful to charge more than 72% interest in any case. Ind.
Code, Section 35-45-7-2. This statute was the subject of the Attorney
General's recent opinion.


SUNTERRA CORP: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Complaint in FL
------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP filed a class action suit entitled Cox v.
Sunterra Corporation, (CV-112-ORL-99-L) in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of Sunterra Corporation common stock between October 4,
1998 and January 19, 2000.

The complaint charges Sunterra and certain of its directors and
executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that
the defendants issued materially false and misleading information
concerning Sunterra's business, earnings growth and profitability and
materially overstated the Company's revenues and earnings throughout the
Class Period. On January 20, 2000, defendants revealed the truth and
announced that Sunterra's fourth quarter results would be in the range
of $.01 and $.08 per share, as compared with $.31 per share in the prior
year and that the Company would be taking a massive charge of $38-$45
million to write off delinquent receivables improperly left on the
Company's books. When the truth was disclosed, Sunterra's stock price
plunged more than $2 per share or 35.35% to an all-time low.

For more information on the above mentioned suit, you may contact, Mark
C. Gardy of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP, at mgardy@a-g-s.com via
e-mail or toll free at 800-889-3701, or 212-889-3700.


SUNTERRA CORP: James V. Bashian Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of James V. Bashian, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased the common stock
of Sunterra Corp. between October 4, 1998 and January 19, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Sunterra and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Sections 10(b)
and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For more information on the above mentioned lawsuit, please contact LAW
OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN, Oren Giskan, Esq., 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite
2700 New York, New York 10110; Telephone: (212) 921- 4110 or (800)
556-8856; E-mail: osgiskan@aol.com


SUNTERRA CORP: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
Jan. 27, 2000, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Sunterra Corp. between Oct. 4, 1998, and Jan. 19, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Sunterra and certain of its senior officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition,
revenues and earnings. Because of the issuance of a series of materially
false and misleading statements the price of Sunterra common stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

For additional details concerning this securities suit, please contact
Craig Lowther in the Shareholder Relations Dept. at Wechsler Harwood
Halebian & Feffer LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022,
(toll free) 877-935-7400 or clowther@whhf.com via e-mail.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Analysts Say Medicaid Suits Won't Hurt Tobacco Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed in the federal courts of eight states on
behalf of Medicaid patients seeking a portion of each state's tobacco
settlement winnings will not affect how rating agencies view bonds
backed with money expected to come from those settlements, agency
analysts said.

The suits allege that Medicaid patients harmed by tobacco are owed money
recovered by the states, because under federal law the states are
required to give that money to the patients, according to Antonio
Ponvert, an attorney with the law firm Koskoff, Koskoff and Bieder in
Bridgeport, Conn.

Ponvert said the states have an obligation under the federal Medicaid
act to pursue recovery for their Medicaid programs. Now, having made
that recovery, the states must reimburse themselves for any legal costs
associated with obtaining it, reimburse the federal government, and then
give whatever is left over to the patients themselves, Ponvert said. And
while the federal government gave up its claim to the money last year,
the Medicaid patients -- many of whom are poor -- cannot, he said.

"As a legal matter, it's clear: the Medicaid act compels the states to
do what it is our laws say they should do," Ponvert said. "They made
promises in the underlying tobacco cases that their cases were for the
recovery of state Medicaid monies."

But those familiar with the national tobacco settlement said the states
made additional arguments in their case against the tobacco companies.
Lawsuits against the tobacco companies did not rest on Medicaid
reimbursement alone, but also quality of life issues.

Analysts said although they would not reject the validity of the suits
out of hand, the suits would not change the way they perceive tobacco
settlement-backed bonds.

Steven Murphy, a managing director with Standard & Poor's, said when his
agency assigned ratings ranging from AA-minus to A to New York City's
$705 million tobacco deal last year, they took into account the
possibility that lawsuits such as the ones filed could pop up.

"These are the kinds of things we could not quantify when we put the
ratings on the bonds, but it's also why we were so strict in capping the
ratings at a certain level," Murphy said.

David Litvack, a managing director with Fitch IBCA Inc., which gave the
New York deal an A-plus, expressed the same opinion.

"This is one of the many legal risks we considered when we initially
rated the securities," Litvack said. "It really doesn't impact our
opinion at this point. Should the lawsuit succeed, and the court rules
it has merit, then we'll reevaluate it."

And even if the lawsuits are successful, the security agreements
included in the New York City deal, and others that have been hammered
out in Westchester and Nassau counties, are strong enough to ensure
bondholder repayment, said Renee Boicourt, a managing director with
Moody's Investors Service. Moody's gave the New York City deal ratings
ranging from Aa1 to Aa3.

The lawsuits were filed in eight states: Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. Ponvert
said he expects similar lawsuits to be filed in other states. He said he
could not quantify how much money lawyers were seeking for the Medicaid
patients. That will have to be determined during the discovery phase of
the different cases, he said. (The Bond Buyer, January 28, 2000)


TRANSCRYPT INT’L: NE Ct Preliminarily OKs Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcrypt International, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TRII) announced on
January 28 that the Honorable Warren K. Urbom of the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska has preliminarily approved a
settlement of the pending stockholder class action suits against the
company and certain of its current and former officers. The settlement
also resolves an identical stockholder class action suit pending in the
District Court for Scottsbluff County, Nebraska. Judge Urbom scheduled a
hearing for final approval of the settlement for March 27, 2000.

Under the settlement agreement, Transcrypt will create a settlement fund
for distribution to class members and class counsel consisting of (a)
4,460,000 shares of Transcrypt common stock and (b) at least $3,850,000
and up to $ 8,850,000 to be paid by Transcrypt's insurance carriers
(depending on the outcome of an arbitration between plaintiffs and one
of the insurance carriers). Transcrypt would also pay $2,000,000 to the
class if there is a purchase of a majority of Transcrypt by acquisition
or merger that occurs before January 1, 2001. The settlement is subject
to a number of contingencies, including final court approval of the
settlement.


V-ONE CORPORATION: Stull, Stull Files Securities Lawsuit in MD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court of Maryland on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of V-One Corporation on November 30, 1999.

The complaint charges that V-One and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10-b(5). The action arises from damages incurred by the class as a
result of a scheme and common course of conduct by defendants which
operated as a fraud and deceit on the class during the Class Period.
Defendants' scheme included rendering false and misleading statements
and/or omissions concerning the present and future financial condition
and business prospects of the Company, as well as the financial benefits
that would enure to V-One and its shareholders.

For more details concerning this suit, please contact Marc L.Godino,
Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, at 888-388-4605 or info@secfraud.com via
e-mail.


V-ONE CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in MD
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of V-One Corporation common stock on
November 30, 1999.

The complaint charges that V-One and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10-b (5). The action arises from damages incurred by the Class as a
result of a scheme and common course of conduct by defendants which
operated as a fraud and deceit on the Class during the Class Period.
Defendants' scheme included rendering false and misleading statements
and/or omissions concerning the present and future financial condition
and business prospects of the Company, as well as the financial benefits
that would enure to V-One and its shareholders.

For more details regarding this lawsuit, please contact plaintiffs'
counsel Ronald T. Theda, Esq., of Weiss & Yourman, at telephone 800-
437-7918 or wyinfo@wyca.com via e-mail.


* GOP Signals On Patients' Bill of Rights Suggest Early Bill
------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Republicans took advantage of two high profile opportunities to
indicate a new openness toward a compromise on the right to sue in a
Patients' Bill of Rights. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott opened the
door on a compromise during a press conference on the GOP agenda. And
Sen. Bill Frist, in responding to the President's State of the Union,
opened the door to lawsuits, even though the Senate bill passed last
year specifically held that door closed.

GOP sources say that the signals from the Senate indicate early movement
on a Patients' Bill of Rights, which will include a heavily conditioned
right to sue. Helping to set the table for the compromise, Frist said
last night, "We believe that neither HMOs nor the government should be
practicing medicine. That's why Congress will, for the first time, send
the President a real patients' bill of rights with strong patient
protections. In our plan, if you're denied the treatment that you and
your doctor decide is right, you'll get a quick appeal to an independent
doctor. Unlike the President, we see lawsuits as a last resort, not the
first, because as every American knows, your sick child needs to see a
doctor, not a lawyer."

Frist's remarks are a significant departure from where the Senate ended
debate last year, and reflects the thinking among House GOP leaders who
believe they cannot hold the line on right to sue, but want to limit the
damage such suits are likely to visit on providers and employers.
Although congressional Republicans are said to have essentially agreed
on a strategy to move a compromise early, they have not agreed on the
desired final outcome. One block of Republicans would like to see the
process end in a veto, while another group, probably the stronger of the
two right now, would like to see the issue dispensed with completely,
which means winning a presidential signature. Nonetheless, one House GOP
source welcomed the idea of putting a provision into the final bill
capping lawyers' fees. Acknowledging that passage of such a provision
could be difficult in the House, the source said, "At least then we'll
all know what this debate is really about."

However, the most important objective for Republicans, according to one
source, is that they earn "credibility" on the issue, regardless of
whether the process results in a law or a veto. The difficulty for them
is that "credibility" will be largely defined by the press and the
Democrats, though Republicans seem adamant at this point about doing
whatever it takes to forge an early agreement among themselves on a
Patients' Bill of Rights.

          Business Lobby To Take Another Shot At Influencing GOP

Sensing the reluctance among Republicans to have this issue drag out for
another year, the business lobby is preparing to fire one more shot at
wavering Republicans, reminding them of the political costs of handing
the trial lawyers and Democrats an early victory. According to an
industry source, a Herculean effort should be made by Republicans to
condition the right to sue as much as possible. That includes at a
minimum caps on damages and external review requirements. The source
said, "If you pass an unlimited right to sue, it is forfeiting your soul
if you're a Republican." The source also noted that trial lawyers have
stepped up their activity recently, filing class action lawsuits and
publicly threatening the health care industry. As a consequence, the
business community is going to ask GOP lawmakers, "Are you saying you
want to contribute to this trend" or go for "legitimate patient
protection?" (The White House Bulletin, January 28, 2000)


                               *********


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., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, DC.  Theresa Cheuk and Peter A. Chapman, editors.

Copyright 1999.  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 301/951-6400.


                    * * *  End of Transmission  * * *