CAR_Public/000211.MBX                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, February 11, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 30

                             Headlines

AA 1420: Estate of Oklahoma Victim in June Crash Sues for Damages
ACCESS HEALTH, HBO: DE Ct Remands Case Re Merger for Savings Clause
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL: Wins Securities Suit in TX over Merger with RELPs
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in IN
AOL: Colson Hicks Files Suit in Miami for Consumers of Software 5.0

BANK ONE: Elwood S. Simon Files Securities Lawsuit in IL
BMC SOFTWARE: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Complaint in TX
CHRISTIE'S, SOTHEBY'S: Morris and Morris Files Suit in NY Re Antitrust
CITY COLLEGE: CA Case against Students Poses Debate on Website Links
COCA-COLA: Papers on Workplace Racial Bias Show Blacks Share Experience

COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL: Bondholders Sue Accountant Arthur Andersen in OK
CSC CREDIT: Improper Release, Not Mere Risk, Constitutes FCRA Violation
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: PA Judge Affirms $58.5 Mil Award in Vent-Burn Case
H&R BLOCK: Sp Ct Cites Agency Role in Case over Loan in Tax Preparation
H&R BLOCK: Liberty Tax Serivce Files Suit in VA over False Advertising

HERBALIFE INT'L: Ct OKs Settlement of Shareholder Suits Re Tender
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Swiss Bank Pact Draws Fire for Release of Insurers
MARCOS: Philippine Rights Victims to Claim Assets If Payout Fails
NCAA: PA Suit over Tests for Student Athletes May Go to Supreme Court
ONYX ACCEPTANCE: Rabin & Peckel Files Securities Suit in California

ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Contests Shareholder Suit in CO over Common Stock Bid
STB SYSTEMS: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Lawsuit in TX
SUNSTAR HEALTHCARE: Shepherd & Geller Files Securities Lawsuit in FL
TD WATERHOUSE: Dennis J. Johnson Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Consumers File 3 Suits in NY over Price Fixing

                           *********

AA 1420: Estate of Oklahoma Victim in June Crash Sues for Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of an Oklahoma resident killed in the June crash of American
Airlines Flight 1420 filed a federal lawsuit on February 9 against the
airline, joining about two dozen other plaintiffs. Jeffery Alan Stewart,
33, of Wister, Okla., died June 10 of multiple injuries. The jetliner
landed in a thunderstorm June 1 and went off a runway at Little Rock
National Airport, where it broke apart and caught fire. In all, 11
people died, including the pilot.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney David E. Rapoport of Rosemont, Ill.,
seeks damages above those allowed by the Warsaw Convention, which
prevents international passengers from seeking punitive damages. Other
lawsuits have taken a similar tack.

The Stewart lawsuit claims that the pilots should have aborted the
landing and knowingly took the jet into a dangerous situation. "The
defendant acted wantonly in causing the crash, or with such a conscious
indifference to the consequences that malice should be inferred," the
lawsuit states. It seeks compensatory damages plus punitive damages "to
make an example of the defendant and to deter similar conduct by other
airlines."

Lawyers for the airline have said that the Warsaw Convention provision
is well-established under U.S. law. It also says that since there was no
malice, punitive damages should not be allowed for either domestic or
international passengers.

U.S. District Judge Henry Woods previously consolidated a number of the
cases and, on Febraury 9, issued an order limiting disclosure of case
information deemed confidential. Woods characterized the confidential
material as "so proprietary or sensitive" that it should be protected
from disclosure.

Among other lawsuits filed after the crash, one was filed in Pulaski
County Circuit Court in an attempt to work past the Warsaw treaty and
allow for punitive damages. American's lawyers have said they would work
to have that lawsuit moved to federal court in Arkansas's Eastern
District and have it consolidated with the others.

Stewart, who was an Air Force mechanic, was on his way to Little Rock
Air Force Base at Jacksonville for jet-engine training for military
mechanics. He was based at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa Island in Japan
and was a member of the 353rd Maintenance Squadron, the Air Force said
after the crash.

In the consolidated cases, Woods set trial for international passengers
for June 19 this year. He set trial for suits from domestic passengers
for May 15, 2001. (The Associated Press, February 9, 2000)"the proxy
materials clearly and unequivocally disclose all the interests at stake;
the Limited Partners were not misled about the General Partners'
interest in this transaction." Judge Prado also noted that "the evidence
strongly suggests that the Limited partners ratified the roll-up
transaction," and he invited AIP to re-urge a Motion for Sanctions.

American Industrial Properties REIT is focused on the light industrial
property sector, including office showroom, service center and flex
properties, low-rise office and small bay distribution buildings.


ACCESS HEALTH, HBO: DE Ct Remands Case Re Merger for Savings Clause
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has remanded a
securities fraud suit, alleging Access Health Inc. and HBO & Co.
distributed false financial information during their merger, because the
suit's equitable fraud claim falls under the "savings clause" of the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). Derdiger v.
Tallman et al., No. 99-670 (D DE, Dec. 9, 1999).

In November 1998, Access sent a proxy statement to all its shareholders,
informing them of a meeting to vote on a merger agreement between Access
and HBO. The agreement provided that Access would merge into an HBO
subsidiary, and Access shareholders would receive 1.45 shares of HBO for
each Access share.

The proxy statement contained financial information about each of the
companies, as well as projected information for the combined company.
The proxy statement also included the Access directors' recommendation
for approval of the merger. On Dec. 10, 1998, the Access shareholders
approved the merger.

Once the companies completed the merger, Howard Derdiger filed a
securities suit on behalf of himself and all other former Access
shareholders in Delaware Chancery Court. Derdiger alleged the directors
of Access and HBO misrepresented material facts in the proxy statements.
Count I of the complaint claimed breach of duty against the directors
and the second count claimed HBO knowingly aided and abetted the
directors' breach of duty. Two months later, Derdiger amended the
complaint to include a third count alleging that HBO committed equitable
fraud by making false statements about its financial performance in the
proxy statement.

HBO removed the action to federal court. Derdiger then moved to remand
the case back to the chancery court.

Upon review of the matter, the district court noted that Congress
enacted SLUSA to make federal court the exclusive venue for most
securities class actions and to prevent plaintiffs from evading federal
law protection from abusive litigation by filing their actions in state
courts. SLUSA also contains a "savings clause," Sec. 78bb(f)(3), which
allows certain securities class actions to proceed with state law
claims.

The district court found the savings clause required the suit to be
remanded to the chancery court. Sec. 78bb(f)(3) allows a securities
class action based on common law to remain in state court if it involves
a recommendation or communication about the sale of securities. Such a
communication must be "made by or on behalf of the issuer or an
affiliate of the issuer to holders of equity securities of the issuer"
and concerns the holders voting their securities, addressing a tender
offer, or exercising stockholders' rights.

The district court reasoned that the equitable fraud claim involved a
communication over the sale of securities on behalf of Access' affiliate
HBO in connection to the vote on the merger agreement and therefore fell
within the scope of the savings clause. The district court decided to
remand the class action to the chancery court. (Corporate Officers and
Directors Liability Litigation Reporter, January 10, 2000)


AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL: Wins Securities Suit in TX over Merger with RELPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
American Industrial Properties REIT (NYSE: IND) ("AIP") announced that
it has prevailed in a securities class action lawsuit pending in San
Antonio, Texas.

The lawsuit arose from the January 1998 roll-up merger between AIP and
four real estate limited partnerships (USAA "RELPs" I-IV). The
plaintiffs alleged that AIP failed to pay adequate consideration for the
RELP properties acquired in the merger and that the RELPs' general
partners breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms of the
merger. The plaintiffs also contended that the proxy materials issued by
AIP and the general partners in connection with the merger were
misleading.

United States District Judge Edward C. Prado granted AIP's Motion for
Summary Judgement. Judge Prado held that the plaintiffs failed to offer
admissible evidence to show they had been damaged. He observed that


ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in IN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Analytical
Surveys, Inc. during the period of January 25, 1999 and January 27,
2000, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Analytical 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 by, among
other things, misrepresenting and/or omitting material information. On
January 27, 2000, ANLT announced that even after adjusting its fiscal
1999 year end revenue and earnings on December 30, 1999, it might have
to restate revenue and earnings for fiscal 1999 due to improper
cost-of-completion projections for certain contracts.

For further information concerning this lawsuit, please contact Andrew
N. Friedman (afriedman@cmht.com ) or Robert Smits (rsmits@cmht.com) of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 500 West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005 at 888/240-0775 or
202/408-4600


AOL: Colson Hicks Files Suit in Miami for Consumers of Software 5.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Colson Hicks Eidson filed a class action suit on
February 9 in Miami Federal Court against America Online, Inc. (AOL) for
unfair business practices and antitrust violations. The suit was filed
as a class action brought by Miami residents Juan and Elizabeth Cofino
on behalf of an estimated 8 million AOL consumers who have already
attempted to install Version 5.0.

The suit alleges that subscribers to AOL who install Version 5.0 of
AOL's Internet software experience problems after downloading the
program. The suit further alleges that the installation of Version 5.0
deliberately interferes with the use of non-AOL communications programs
and with connections to non-AOL Internet service providers (ISP),
resulting in the calculated and intended prevention and destruction of
competition in the ISP industry. Problems resulting from installing
Version 5.0 include replacing or modifying critical windows files and
communications setting, which makes it virtually impossible to connect
to alternative ISPs. Once the program is installed, it makes it harder,
if not impossible, to use another ISP. "We feel it is an attempt by AOL,
the largest Internet service provider in the world, to monopolize the
ISP industry through deceptive tactics," said Mike Eidson, partner at
Colson Hicks Eidson, which handles cases in the burgeoning legal arena
of emerging technologies.

The complaint alleges anti-trust violations, common law state claims and
a statutory unfair deceptive trade practice claim. At no time did AOL
alert its customers that during the installation process, AOL Version
5.0 would unnecessarily `customize' the host system's communications
configuration and settings such as to interfere with any non-AOL
software and service the customers might have or have in the future. In
addition to downloading Version 5.0, AOL has mailed CDs containing the
program to millions of mailboxes across the country as part of AOL's
massive bulk-mailing program. Potential customers or even unsuspecting
children can cause extreme damage to both the target computer and its
existing file.

The named Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Cofino, have been AOL customers for a
long time. Shortly after Version 5.0 was made available, they downloaded
it from the Internet, primarily because AOL touted its additional
features, such as the ease of attaching pictures to email. When they
installed it, they were not warned that the software would make major
changes to their Windows operating system. In the Cofino's case, the
changes caused such havoc that they were unable to restore their system
and lost very important personal and financial information. After losing
such valuable data as tax returns, health care information and their
children's poems and schoolwork, they had to resort to reconfiguring
their entire operating system. "The problem is that users who have not
yet experienced difficulties may do so when they connect to non-AOL
service," added Eidson. "It is not yet clear the extent of the damage
brought on by installing Version 5.0; the ultimate consequences of this
evolving global dispute are unknown."

Contact: The Law Firm of Colson Hicks Eidson, Miami Karen M. Guggenheim
Director of Communications & Public Affairs 305/373-5400 x228


BANK ONE: Elwood S. Simon Files Securities Lawsuit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------
Elwood S. Simon & Associates, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on
behalf of all persons who had their shares of First Chicago NBD Corp.
exchanged for shares of Bank One Corp. pursuant to the October 2, 1998
merger of First Chicago NBD Corp. and Bank One Corp.

The complaint alleges that Bank One Corp. and several officers of the
company violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with the October 2, 1998 merger. According to the complaint,
material misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration Statement
and Proxy/Prospectus for the merger caused the price of Bank One Corp.
common stock to be artificially inflated at the time it was issued to
former First Chicago NBD Corp. shareholders in exchange for their First
Chicago NBD Corp. common stock. As a result, former First Chicago NBD
Corp. shareholders received insufficient value when their First Chicago
NBD Corp. common stock was exchanged for Bank One Corp. common stock
pursuant to the merger.

For matters regarding the above-mentioned lawsuit, please contact Elwood
S. Simon, Esq. of Elwood S. Simon & Associates, P.C., telephone at
248/646-9730, fax at 248/248-2335 or e-mail at essassocpc@aol.com or Jan
Bartelli, Esq. or Kevin Landau, Esq of Garwin of Bronzaft, Gerstein &
Fisher, L.L.P., telephone at 1-888/398-5553 or fax at 212/764-6620 or at
lawoffices@gbgf-law.com or gbgf@gbgf-law.com via e-mail.


BMC SOFTWARE: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Complaint in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C filed a securities class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on behalf of a Class of persons who purchased the common stock
of BMC Software, Inc. at artificially inflated prices during the period
July 29, 1999 through January 4, 2000 and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint charges defendants, BMCS and certain of its officers and
directors, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements about
(1) strong sales of BMCS' existing software products; (2) the successful
integration of its acquisitions of Boole & Babbage and New Dimension
Software earlier in 1999; (3) strong demand for its mainframe MIPS
software, notwithstanding a slowdown in sales of IBM mainframe
computers; and (4) the lack of customer deferrals of orders or purchases
due to Y2K concerns, resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

Contact: Barbara A. Podell or Robert P. Frutkin of Savett Frutkin Podell
& Ryan. P.C. at 215/923- 5400 or 800/993-3233 or via e-mail at
sfprpc@op.net


CHRISTIE'S, SOTHEBY'S: Morris and Morris Files Suit in NY Re Antitrust
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Morris and Morris on
February 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, seeking to pursue remedies under the federal antitrust laws on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who either (a) purchased any
items auctioned by Christie's International PLC or Sotheby's Inc.
between Jan. 1, 1992 and the present, or (b) sold any items through
Christie's or Sotheby's between March 1, 1995 and the present.

The class action complaint alleges that Christie's and Sotheby's
conspired to fix the commissions (or "premiums") they charged their
respective clients, thereby eliminating competition between Christie's
and Sotheby's and enabling each to charge higher commissions at the
expense of its clients. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on or
about Jan. 1, 1992, Christie's and Sotheby's secretly agreed to fix the
premiums each charged buyers at identical, noncompetitive levels, and
that on or about March 1, 1995, Christie's and Sotheby's further
secretly agreed to fix the commissions each charged sellers at
identical, noncomptitive levels. The complaint alleges that this
conspiracy violated the federal antitrust laws, and seeks treble damages
and injunctive relief on behalf of all members of the class as defined
above.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Morris and Morris. Contact:
James A. McShane, Esq. at Morris and Morris by calling toll free
1-800-296-0410, or by e-mail at morrisandmorris@compuserve.com or by fax
at 302/426-0406, or by writing Morris and Morris at 1105 North Market
Street, Suite 1600, Wilmington, DE 19801.


CITY COLLEGE: CA Case against Students Poses Debate on Website Links
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The courts are delving into yet another legal question that has arisen
in the cyberspace age: If your Web site links to another site, are you
liable for the content on that site?

A San Francisco professor thinks so. He has sued both the creator of a
Web site posting student reviews of his teaching and a student group
linking to the site.

As has been reported on the CAR, last October, Daniel Curzon Brown filed
a class action on behalf of himself and other professors at San
Francisco City College. The lawsuit, Curzon Brown v. San Francisco
Community College District, 307335, filed in San Francisco Superior
Court, seeks an injunction against the posting of defamatory comments on
the Teacher Review Web site. The site, created and operated by a former
City College student, consists of student critiques of City College
professors. A trial date has been set for March 29.

But Robert Meyers, a partner at Steinhart & Falconer who is representing
Associated Students of City College -- the student group maintains its
own Web site that links to Teacher Review -- says the issue of liability
by linking is already addressed in current law.

"Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and basic defamation law
prevents suing one Web site that links to another alleged to have
committed defamation," says Meyers. Otherwise, he adds, any Web site
could be sued for the content on any site it links to.

James Chadwick, an associate in Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich's Palo Alto
office, agrees. "In defamation there is a republication rule that says
the republisher is liable in the same way as the original publisher or
speaker," says Chadwick. "Is simply providing a link to another site
adequate to constitute republication? I think that's a stretch."

And what about original publications on the Internet? Can those posting
opinions be held liable for defamation?

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the creator of
the Teacher Review site, contends that the material there is protected
under the First Amendment.

"If the legal theories underlying Curzon Brown's claims had any merit,
no on-line forum for the exchange of views on any topic interesting
enough to be controversial could survive the risk of suit by
self-appointed guardians of 'correct' thinking like plaintiff," reads
part of an ACLU brief prepared in response to the professor's suit.

Curzon Brown, for his part, believes the Internet has provided a forum
for people to libel others with impunity. "Anyone can send in a review
lying about you for the world to read, and you can't respond," he says.
"It's just like McCarthyism."

The anonymous comments posted about Curzon Brown on the Teacher Review
site are very harsh. According to his complaint, Curzon Brown has been
called a "racist," "emotionally unbalanced" and "mentally ill."
According to the complaint, he also has been accused on the Teacher
Review site of "violent mood swings, irrational personal attacks on
students, and insane progressions in thought." "You would be sued for
libel if you published anything like this in a newspaper," Curzon Brown
said. (The Recorder, February 8, 2000)


COCA-COLA: Papers on Workplace Racial Bias Show Blacks Share Experience
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Few in number, black employees at Coca-Cola formed networking groups to
share prejudical experiences as a way to ''retain their psychological
health,'' according to documents released as part of a racial
discrimination suit.

Coke turned over about 300 pages of documents on February 9 to lawyers
representing eight current and former black employees who have sued the
beverage giant, claiming the company discriminated against blacks in
pay, promotion and performance evaluations. ''It's really a window into
how the top blacks of the company were dealing with racism,'' said Cyrus
Mehri, a Washington lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

Included in the documents 40 pages of which Coke faxed to reporters is a
December 1995 report on diversity from Carl Ware, the former head of
Coke's Africa Group, to M. Douglas Ivester, who was then Coke president
and will soon retire as chairman and chief executive officer.

In the fall of 1995, Ware led a discussion group of five black senior
Coke officials who reviewed the company's efforts at diversifying its
work force and the environment in which black employees worked.

The group concluded that some black employees were seen as ''lacking the
skills and intelligence to succeed in certain areas,'' and that group
members credited their advancement to mentors and their ''ability to
depersonalize prejudicial behavior.''

''Even when African-Americans were few in number in the organization, an
informal network of African-Americans was operating to provide sanity
checks and a comparison of related experiences with the social realities
of the organization,'' Ware wrote. ''This allowed many of them to retain
their psychological health.'' Mehri called the report ''the litigation
equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall.'' ''They have no more moral
standing left,'' he said.

Coke spokesman Ben Deutsch said plaintiff attorneys were reading too
much into the documents, which U.S. District Judge Richard Story last
month ordered Coke to produce. ''It doesn't say that the company was
systematically engaging in practices that discriminate against
African-Amercian associates,'' he said.

Ivester, who plans to retire after Coke shareholders meet in April, is
being replaced by Douglas Daft. Deutsch said that neither Ware nor
Ivester was available to discuss the report.

Daft, who was elected president in December, has made a series of swift
management decisions in recent weeks, including persuading Ware to
change his mind about leaving the company and announcing worldwide job
cuts of 6,000 workers as the Atlanta-based company struggles to stem
declining profits.

Deutsch said the documents were made public because the company wanted
''to be sure the information is put in the proper context.'' He said
many of Ware's recommendations had been implemented, including a formal
minority recruitment and training program, a quarterly networking
program for black employees and diversity training for all managers
starting this year.

In a statement, Coke's incoming president Jack Stahl said the company is
committed to renewing its diversity efforts. ''While the company has
taken some actions since that report was written, we are not where we
want to be where diversity is concerned,'' Stahl said. ''We must and
will make accelerated progress.''

The discrimination lawsuit seeks class action status, which would expand
it to represent more than 2,000 black employees in the United States.

Coca-Cola has denied the allegations of discrimination and is fighting
the efforts to certify the lawsuit as a class action.

In an order made public on February 8, Story said the parties must
''attempt in good faith to settle this case by participating in
non-binding, confidential mediation,'' in which a neutral third party
attempts to reach a settlement.

James Voyles, a Marietta attorney representing the plaintiffs, said that
the mediation is expected to start in two to three weeks. He declined to
reveal who the mediator is. (AP Online, February 10, 2000)


COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL: Bondholders Sue Accountant Arthur Andersen in OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Commercial Financial Services Inc. bondholders have put a new
spin on the ancient practice of killing the messenger for delivering bad
news -- they are suing the accountant for not telling them the bad news.

In three separate lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Tulsa on
February 7, 174 bondholders sued Arthur Andersen LLP, the accounting
firm for CFS during the period the debt collector sold about $ 1.7
billion in bonds.

Chicago-based Andersen was reckless or at least inattentive when
auditing CFS's annual financial statements for 1995-1997, the suits
alleged. Investors relied on those audits when they bought CFS bonds,
the lawsuits stated -- a move that resulted in millions of dollars in
damages.

Andersen was derelict in getting to know CFS, how it operated, its
internal controls and whether it could hit its financial goals, the
lawsuits alleged.

Bondholders alleged that CFS failed to adhere to accounting principals
in its financial statements and Andersen then failed to call the
company's bluff. "Andersen either knew, or was deliberately reckless in
not knowing, that the CFS financial statements did not comply with"
generally accepted accounting principals, two lawsuits representing 169
bondholders alleged. "Contrary to its representations to plaintiffs,
Andersen did not perform audits in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards."

In addition, the bondholders alleged that Andersen repeatedly uncovered
troubling information about CFS's bulk sales of accounts to other debt
collectors, but chose to ignore its obligation to bring those
abnormalities to bondholders' attention. "Andersen violated legal duties
owed to plaintiffs," alleged the two lawsuits. "Under the Securities Act
of 1934, the Oklahoma Securities Act, and the common law, Andersen must
compensate plaintiffs for the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages
plaintiffs have suffered as a result of Andersen's unlawful conduct."

The five complainants in the third lawsuit sought at least enough to
recover the $ 59 million they spent on bonds plus damages.

CFS paid bond investors based on the company's ability to collect more
than the industry average from overdue credit card accounts. CFS sold
the bonds to finance additional purchases of bad credit card accounts
from card issuers. Its financial statements provided the only concrete
proof of how well CFS did its job as a debt collector.

The statements CFS produced, and Andersen audited, provided a glowing
view that was ultimately a financial mirage, according to the lawsuits.
". . . CFS failed to record a liability to reflect its true cost of
collecting credit card receivables, which was more than CFS was being
paid to service the credit card receivables," two bondholder groups
alleged. "Had Andersen demanded that CFS record this liability,
plaintiffs would have known the lie behind CFS's purported superior debt
collection ability and would not have purchased" the bonds.

Through it actions or inaction, bondholders alleged, Andersen "played a
key role in perpetuating the scheme" to defraud bondholders. An
anonymous letter to bond rating agencies in October 1998 exposed CFS's
failing system, some bondholders alleged. The letter led to a suspension
in ratings on CFS bonds. The suspension cut off CFS from selling more
bonds. Less than eight months later the company was bankrupt.

All three suits accused Andersen of negligent misrepresentation, common
law fraud and violation of securities law. Each requested a jury trial.
(TULSA World, February 9, 2000)


CSC CREDIT: Improper Release, Not Mere Risk, Constitutes FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actionable harm under the Fair Credit Reporting Act is improper
disclosure of a credit report, not the mere risk of improper disclosure
when reporting agencies do not follow reasonable procedures. A reporting
agency must first release a credit report for there to be a violation of
the act. Washington, et al. v. CSC Credit Services Inc., et al., No.
98-31209 (5th Cir. 1/7/00).

Bernita and Kevin Washington and other consumers brought a class action
against CSC Credit Services Inc. and Equifax Inc. under the FCRA. They
alleged the reporting agencies failed to maintain reasonable procedures,
as required by Section 1681e(a) of the act, before providing their
credit reports to insurance companies. The consumers requested
statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found that
the class satisfied the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). The court denied
Equifax's motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, the District Court
concluded that a consumer claiming a violation of the FCRA for failure
to maintain proper procedures does not need to first show an improper
disclosure.

The reporting agencies appealed challenging the class certification.
Specifically, they argued that the consumers did not meet the typicality
and commonality requirements of Rule 23(a) nor the superiority and
predominance requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Finally, the reporting
agencies claimed the District Court erred in certifying the class under
Rule 23(b)(2) because the FCRA does not offer individuals injunctive
relief.

                       Reasonable Procedures

On appeal, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained the FCRA
requires reporting agencies to maintain reasonable procedures to avoid
furnishing consumer credit reports to insurance companies other than at
a consumer's request or for underwriting purposes. It then addressed the
issue presented: "whether a plaintiff can bring an action for failure to
'maintain [the] reasonable procedures' required by 1681e(a) without
first showing that a report was disclosed" for other than the permitted
purposes.

Considering the purpose of Section 1681b - to limit the furnishing of
credit reports - Judge Emilio M. Garza opined that the purpose of the
act is not furthered unless a consumer suffers the harm the act was
meant to prevent, improper disclosure. Thus, the court ruled,
"actionable harm the FCRA envisions is improper disclosure, not the mere
risk of improper disclosure that arises when 'reasonable procedures' are
not followed and disclosures are made."

The 5th Circuit vacated and reversed the District Court's class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

                      Injunctive Relief

In certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(2), the District Court found
that the consumers were entitled to injunctive relief under the FCRA.
The 5th Circuit held otherwise.

First, the court referred to the fact that the act contains civil
liability provisions regarding damages and attorney's fees but does not
mention injunctive relief. The 5th Circuit found this omission
significant because "the Act elsewhere expressly grants the power to
obtain injunctive relief to the [Federal Trade Commission]." The court
perceived this affirmative grant of power to the Federal Trade
Commission and a similar lack of remedy to individual litigants to be a
strong indication that Congress only intended the FTC to have the power
to obtain injunctive relief in FCRA actions. Because the "application of
Rule 23(b)(2) would frustrate the FCRA's limitation of injunctive relief
to the FTC" the 5th Circuit vacated the District Court's Rule 23(b)(3)
certification as well.

Regarding the credit reporting agencies' argument that the class's
request for monetary damages predominated over its request for
injunctive relief, the 5th Circuit looked to see if the monetary damages
flowed directly from the declaratory relief. It ruled that they did not.
Instead, the 5th Circuit found the monetary damages were the predominant
form of relief requested by the class.

The court remanded the case for further proceedings. (Consumer Financial
Services Law Report, January 25, 2000)


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: PA Judge Affirms $58.5 Mil Award in Vent-Burn Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A state court judge in Philadelphia has denied post-trial motions and
let stand a $58.5 million compensatory and punitive damages award to
80,000 owners of 1988, 1989,and 1990 Chrysler vehicles with air bag
vents at the "three and nine o'clock" positions. The plaintiffs claimed
that the positioning allows hot gas to escape on deflation, resulting in
burns to the hands and arms. The award represents approximately $730 per
class member. Crawley et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 4900 July
Term 1990 (PA Ct. C.P., Philadelphia Cty., Jan. 11, 2000); see
Automotive LR, March 3, 1999, P. 3.

Judge Mark I. Bernstein of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for
Philadelphia County issued a one-pageorder denying all post-trial
motions but one: the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. The amount
of fees has not been determined.

DaimlerChrysler will appeal.

An attorney for the plaintiffs noted that while the possible burns were
not life threatening, they could be disfiguring, a risk Chrysler ignored
when choosing the air bag design. The suit charged that Chrysler issued
a deceptive and inaccurate owner's manual with the vehicles, which
warned only of "minor abrasions" and "skin-reddening."

The automaker contended in its post-trial motions that the class was not
properly certified, and that the court's handling of the suit violated
the rules of civil procedure. Chrysler also said the evidence was
insufficient to support the jury's defect finding that: (1) no fraud had
taken place; (2) Chrysler had no duty to disclose air bag safety
studies; (3) certain expert witnesses for the plaintiffs should not have
been allowed to testify; and (4) an expert for the defense was
improperly precluded from testifying.

The large number of motions were designed to preserve the issues for
appeal, and according to Chrysler counsel Terri Reiskin of Hogan &
Hartson in Washington, DC, the automaker plans to challenge the
"entirety" of Judge Bernstein's ruling.

Chrysler was also represented by James Hourihan of Hogan & Hartson,
Keith Heinold of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in
Philadelphia, and Charles A. Newman of Bryan Cave in St. Louis.

The plaintiffs were represented by Joseph C. Kohn and Martin J. D'Urso
of Kohn Swift & Graf, and Isaac Green of Moody & Anderson. Both are
located in Philadelphia. (Automotive Litigation Reporter, January 18,
2000)


H&R BLOCK: Sp Ct Cites Agency Role in Case over Loan in Tax Preparation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fate of a case that could pit thousands of H & R Block customers
against the national tax preparation company is now in the hands of the
state Supreme Court. On February 1 the justices heard oral arguments in
Basile v. H & R Block Inc.

Last March, the Superior Court overturned a Philadelphia Common Pleas
Court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in the case,
in which customers allege H & R Block failed to disclose that its "Rapid
Refund" program is really a high-interest loan. St. Louis attorney
Louise Ellingsworth argued the case on behalf of Block. Philadelphia
attorney Steven E. Angstreich represented the taxpayers.

H & R Block prepares income-tax returns for its customers. In addition
to the preparation, Block can electronically file the tax returns with
the IRS. Through this electronic filing, Block provides its customers
with a service commonly called the "Rapid Refund" program. Block claims
it will turn the return into cash through a "Refund Anticipation Loan."
Anyone interested in the service must agree to the loan and sign a
check. The lawsuit alleges that Block does not adequately inform its
customers that the Rapid Refund service is in fact a loan, complete with
interest.

Mellon Bank, which is located in Delaware, was an initial defendant in
the case. Mellon was eventually dismissed as a party to the suit.
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Administrative Judge John W. Herron
threw out the class action on all claims but one breach of fiduciary
duty. The case was then transferred to Judge Stephen E. Levin. Levin
granted summary judgment to Block in February 1998, ruling that H & R
Block had not entered a fiduciary relationship or acted as an agent for
Block customers who sought tax-preparation services. He preserved any
separate individual claims under the state consumer protection law.

The Superior Court opinion, written by Judge Justin M. Johnson,
disagreed with Levin's analysis, saying that Pennsylvania agency law
does establish a possible agency relationship between Block and the
class members. Since federal tax law makes each filer ultimately
responsible, on pain of perjury, for the veracity of information on the
return, each filer is vested as a matter of law "with the ultimate right
of control over the compilation and filing of his or her return,"
Johnson reasoned. "Because plaintiffs engaged Block to file their
returns subject to plaintiffs' right of control and because Block
accepted the task accordingly, we conclude that all elements of an
agency relationship have been established," Johnson wrote. Within the
agency relationship, Johnson then concluded, there was a fiduciary duty
flowing from Block's tax preparers and the filers. If the plaintiffs can
show that Block personnel failed to disclose the true nature of the
Rapid Refund service, they may be able to establish a breach of duty on
a class-wide scale, Johnson suggested in remanding the case to the
Philadelphia court for resolution of the issue.

The Supreme Court granted allocatur to decide "whether the Superior
Court erred as a matter of law in finding that an agency relationship
... could be established under the 'control over the result test'
without any showing that the purported agent was acting for the benefit
of, and with the ability to bind, the purported principal."

                            Oral Argument

Ellingsworth said the Superior Court abandoned the traditional test of
agency in rendering its decision. During the argument the justices asked
many questions to both sides.

Justice Ralph J. Cappy asked Ellingsworth to show how there was no
agency relationship between Block and its customers. "Where is there a
lack of control over the loan?" Cappy asked. "Block is not a party to
that transaction," Ellingsworth said. She said that Block was basically
making a "contract for services" and was only referring customers to
Mellon Bank, where a transaction took place between Mellon and the tax
filer.

"Does [Block's relationship] constitute the ability to act on behalf of
someone?" Cappy asked. There is a difference between acting "on the
request of" someone rather than "on behalf of" someone, Ellingsworth
said.

Justice Stephen A. Zappala asked about the paperwork between the
taxpayer and Mellon, and Justice Thomas Saylor asked Ellingsworth if she
thought the case was appropriate for summary judgment. Ellingsworth said
it was. But Angstreich said that Block does indeed do the work for the
taxpayer and is in effect the representative of the taxpayer. "Is
someone being tricked here somewhere?" Justice Ronald D. Castille asked
at one point. Castille said as a consumer himself, if he were to see
that he's getting less money than the total refund, "unless I'm totally
naive, I see someone's getting it."  (The Legal Intelligencer, February
2, 2000)


H&R BLOCK: Liberty Tax Serivce Files Suit in VA over False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a lawsuit filed January 30th in the U.S. District Court, Norfolk
Division, Liberty Tax Service and several of its local franchisees filed
a false advertising claim against H&R Block alleging the H&R Block
advertisements mislead customers thereby giving H&R Block an unfair
competitive advantage.

In the suit Liberty Tax Service charges Block with falsely advertising
their refund anticipation loan product, which in truth is a bank loan
for the anticipated refund less fees. Liberty tax alleges that H&R Block
is currently advertising in the Hampton Roads market that the customer
receives the "refund amount" in just two days without disclosing it is a
bank loan and that certain fees will be withheld.

According to Charles N. Lovelace, a local franchisee of Liberty Tax
Service, "I believe this is a clear attempt to create unfair competition
in our home market. Liberty Tax Service is committed to customer service
and we believe that H&R Block is hurting the customer, and thereby
hurting the tax preparation industry overall."

The suit also notes that IRS rules mandate that refund anticipation
loans be clearly described as a loan and not a refund in all advertising
materials.

H&R Block paid stiff penalties for a similar alleged violation in 1996
of a New York City regulation against deception in the advertising of
refund anticipation loans.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Ct OKs Settlement of Shareholder Suits Re Tender
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International Inc. (Nasdaq:HERBA) (Nasdaq:HERBB) reported on
February 10 that MH Millennium Acquisition Corp., an entity controlled
and beneficially owned by Mark Hughes, the founder, chairman, president
and chief executive officer of Herbalife, has extended the expiration of
its previously announced tender offer to 5:00 p.m., New York City time,
on Friday, March 10, 2000.

Hughes indicated that he and his advisers continue to address the
financing of the transaction. In addition, the company noted that under
the terms of the agreement governing the transaction, Hughes has the
right to further extend the tender offer. As of the close of business on
Feb. 8, 2000, approximately 1,434,740 shares of Herbalife's Class A
stock and 3,117,927 shares of Herbalife's Class B stock had been validly
tendered and not withdrawn in response to the tender offer.

On Sept. 13, 1999, Herbalife announced that its board of directors
accepted a definitive offer from Mark Hughes to purchase all company
shares not owned by Hughes for $17.00 per share in cash.

                Court Approves Final Settlement Offer

Herbalife also reported on February that it has obtained final court
approval of the proposed settlement of shareholder lawsuits challenging
the proposed transactions. The final court order provides for a
dismissal with prejudice of several lawsuits against the company, its
directors and certain of its executive officers challenging the proposed
transactions after its announcement in September 1999.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, members of the settlement
class (which includes, generally, the company's public stockholders and
the holders of the DECS securities issued by DECS Trust III) would
become entitled to a supplemental cash payment in an amount equal to
$.81 per share or DECS security.

The supplemental payment would be in addition to the $17.00 per share in
cash payable pursuant to the tender offer and the merger.

The terms of the settlement, including the making of the supplemental
payment, remain subject to a number of conditions, including completion
of the buy-out transaction. There can be no assurance that these
conditions will be satisfied; consequently, there can be no assurance
that the supplemental payment will be made.

Herbalife International Inc. markets nutritional, weight-management and
personal care products in 46 countries worldwide. Herbalife products are
available only through a network of independent distributors who
purchase the products directly from the company.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Swiss Bank Pact Draws Fire for Release of Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A coalition of Holocaust survivor groups from South Florida is objecting
to a proposed $ 1.25 billion settlement of a class-action lawsuit
against Swiss banks accused of harboring billions in assets that were
stolen by the Nazis from European Jews before and during World War II.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., the 15
groups, which have a total of 10,000 members, contend the deal is
inadequate because it releases from the suit a number of Swiss insurance
companies that operated in Nazi Germany during the war.

The survivors don't want to see culpable parties get off the hook
without paying what they owe, Miami lawyer Samuel Dubbin of Greenberg
Traurig said in an interview. He represents both the coalition and Dr.
Thomas Weiss, a Miami Beach ophthalmologist and a son of survivors who
is pressing claims for family bank accounts in Switzerland as well as
unpaid European insurance policies.

Dubbin contends German and Swiss insurance companies should not be
released from the suit because money they collected from Jews in Europe
ended up in the Swiss banking system.

Several Swiss insurers were used to cloak the assets of the major
Nazi-based insurance companies, Allianz and Munich Re within Swiss
companies, Dubbin wrote in a 36-page court filing. Swiss insurers
profited directly and handsomely from the German insurance market during
World War II. They also profited from gold looted by Nazis from Jews and
other victims. Why should they be released in litigation over Swiss bank
accounts?

Richard Litten of Washington, D.C.s Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, who
represents a group of defendant Swiss banks, did not respond to a
telephone message by press time.

The survivors and heirs have a right to know whether, and on what terms,
any particular company will be released, forever, from all liabilities
for Holocaust-era insurance policies or other ill-gotten gains, Dubbin
adds in his court filing. This is especially true with respect to Swiss
companies used as dummy entities to fence assets stolen from Jews during
the Holocaust.

A settlement in the bank case --brought in 1996 -- was agreed to in late
January 1999. It is designed to resolve claims by thousands of survivors
and heirs who have dormant bank accounts in Switzerland. Before the
litigation, many of the banks either denied the accounts existed or
refused to cooperate when survivors and their families sought access to
their money.

The litigation is only a part of a broader effort by survivors to
reclaim assets stolen by the Nazis from European Jews, 6 million of whom
were systematically murdered during the war. Federal courts granted
survivors and heirs a forum to press their claims against European banks
and other companies such as insurance firms because many conduct
business in the United States.

In the Swiss bank case, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman appointed New
York attorney Judah Gribetz of Richards & ONeil as a special master to
decide how the money is to be distributed.

Last summer, the court started the process of notifying survivors and
heirs about the settlement. From around the world, several hundred
thousand people responded and filled out questionnaires to stake claims
to bank accounts. Gribitz is expected to propose an allocation plan some
time in March, according to Dubbin.

The judge has not yet ruled on the fairness of the settlement or the
coalitions objection.

Greenberg Traurig said in an interview. He represents both the coalition
and Dr. Thomas Weiss, a Miami Beach ophthalmologist and a son of
survivors who is pressing claims for family bank accounts in Switzerland
as well as unpaid European insurance policies.

Dubbin contends German and Swiss insurance companies should not be
released from the suit because money they collected from Jews in Europe
ended up in the Swiss banking system.

Several Swiss insurers were used to cloak the assets of the major
Nazi-based insurance companies, Allianz and Munich Re within Swiss
companies, Dubbin wrote in a 36-page court filing. Swiss insurers
profited directly and handsomely from the German insurance market during
World War II. They also profited from gold looted by Nazis from Jews and
other victims. Why should they be released in litigation over Swiss bank
accounts?

Richard Litten of Washington, D.C.s Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, who
represents a group of defendant Swiss banks, did not respond to a
telephone message by press time.

The survivors and heirs have a right to know whether, and on what terms,
any particular company will be released, forever, from all liabilities
for Holocaust-era insurance policies or other ill-gotten gains, Dubbin
adds in his court filing. This is especially true with respect to Swiss
companies used as dummy entities to fence assets stolen from Jews during
the Holocaust.

A settlement in the bank case --brought in 1996 -- was agreed to in late
January 1999. It is designed to resolve claims by thousands of survivors
and heirs who have dormant bank accounts in Switzerland. Before the
litigation, many of the banks either denied the accounts existed or
refused to cooperate when survivors and their families sought access to
their money.

The litigation is only a part of a broader effort by survivors to
reclaim assets stolen by the Nazis from European Jews, 6 million of whom
were systematically murdered during the war. Federal courts granted
survivors and heirs a forum to press their claims against European banks
and other companies such as insurance firms because many conduct
business in the United States.

In the Swiss bank case, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman appointed New
York attorney Judah Gribetz of Richards & ONeil as a special master to
decide how the money is to be distributed.

Last summer, the court started the process of notifying survivors and
heirs about the settlement. From around the world, several hundred
thousand people responded and filled out questionnaires to stake claims
to bank accounts. Gribetz is expected to propose an allocation plan some
time in March, according to Dubbin.

The judge has not yet ruled on the fairness of the settlement or the
coalitions objection. (Broward Daily Business Review, February 3, 2000)


MARCOS: Philippine Rights Victims to Claim Assets If Payout Fails
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rights abuse victims under the Ferdinand Marcos regime will lay claim to
the assets of late Philippine dictator's estate to implement a
two-billion-dollar judgement if a 150-million-dollar payout deal falls
through, a lawyer for the group said on February 10, 2000.

"If we have to terminate the settlement agreement, I think you will see
us moving quickly and aggressively to go after any and every Marcos
asset we can find in the United States and elsewhere," US lawyer Robert
Swift told a news conference here. "This has been a long and troubling
case and the human rights victims deserve to be compensated now, not
some time in the future," he said.

Swift, who represents 10,000 Filipino human rights victims, said the US
district court of Hawaii has set a February 28 deadline for the Marcos
family to produce the compensation money. Failure to do so would
terminate an agreement reached last year, leaving Marcos' widow, Imelda,
and son, Ferdinand Junior, in contempt of court and facing additional
damages of about 171 million dollars, he said. "This is not an issue of
sincerity on both parties, this is simply a question of transfer of
money. If it does not happen, there is no deal," Swift said.

Swift said the victims of torture, summary killings and forced
disappearances and their relatives would then seek to implement a 1994
ruling by the Hawaii district court awarding them two billion dollars in
damages for their suffering. The victims had won a class action suit
lodged before the court.

The court would also be asked to grant a pending motion to compel Imelda
to testify under oath as to the true extent of the fabled Marcos wealth,
which some experts estimate at 10 billion dollars, Swift said.

Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said the government would
continue to go after the Marcos funds, but noted the rights victims also
have the right to shift strategy. "As much as practical, we will
continue to pursue it through the legal process," she told reporters.
"For the human rights victims, it's their call."

Senate minority floor leader Teofisto Guingona said deals involving the
Marcos family should now be "pursued with more resoluteness at this
stage." "The promises have to be made concrete," he said.

Ferdinand Marcos and his cronies are believed to have amassed a fortune
during his 20-year regime, which was ended by a 1986 popular revolt that
sent him into exile in Hawaii where he died three years later. Not a
cent has been recovered in 14 years of costly and often lengthy
litigation. The only money so far identified is 540 million dollars held
in Swiss accounts that has since been transfered to an escrow account in
Manila and grown to 630 million dollars because of interest.

The 150 million dollar payout deal was struck between the Marcos estate
and the victims, and endorsed by the government of President Joseph
Estrada, in a bid to end varying claims to the money.

However, a special graft court ruled it illegal pending a ruling on who
were the real owners of the funds. Swift said that ruling was "wrongly
conceived" but conceded the only option now for the Marcos family was to
pay "independently of the escrow account."

Failure to put a closure on the Marcos wealth case goes "against the
grain of history and the development of jurisprudence," Swift stressed,
noting that even rights victims under the Holocaust "are finally
achieving some compensation" for their sufferings.

Among the assets that could be seized are a Picasso paintaing and some
1.5 million dollars in other assets, including real estate in the
Philippines and the United States that have so far been identified.

Swift and his Filipino co-counsel Rod Domingo, however, admitted the
public "may never know the full extent" of the Marcos wealth. (Agence
France Presse, February 10, 2000)


NCAA: PA Suit over Tests for Student Athletes May Go to Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia declined on
February 9 to review whether the NCAA is subject to federal civil rights
laws, but an attorney for the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit
said her clients would ask the Supreme Court to review the matter.

A federal judge had ruled that the NCAA's current criteria for the use
of standardized test scores violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, citing
the rule's "disparate impact on black student-athletes." The judge also
ruled that the NCAA received federal funds and, as a private
organization, is subject to the civil rights laws.

A three-judge panel reversed the lower court ruling in December in a
split vote, making its decision on jurisdictional issues and determining
the NCAA could use those criteria to determine who is eligible to
compete, practice and receive athletic scholarships as college freshmen.

February 9's ruling, in effect, puts the onus on the Supreme Court to
decide whether to hear the case and, if it does, make a ruling with
wide-ranging ramifications on collegiate sports. The Justice Department
had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the plaintiffs'
argument.

Adele Kimmel of Trail Lawyers for Public Justice said the plaintiffs
would file within the 90-day period allowed for cases to be appealed to
the Supreme Court. "We are very disappointed by [yesterday's] ruling and
very surprised," she said. "We are optimistic that the Supreme Court
will grant review because it cannot and should not be the law that the
NCAA is immune from the civil rights laws and free to discriminate on
the basis of race, sex or disability."

Elsa Cole, the NCAA's general counsel, said in a statement that the use
of the test scores has helped increase graduation rates for both white
and black student-athletes. "We will continue to study the effects of
the legislation as we have since the inception of initial-eligibility
standards, but we also believe decisions about such standards should be
made by higher education and not the courts," she said. (The Washington
Post, February 10, 2000)


ONYX ACCEPTANCE: Rabin & Peckel Files Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Orange County District, on
behalf of purchasers of Onyx Acceptance Corp. (Nasdaq: ONYX) common
stock during the period from April 28, 1997 through January 26, 1999,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Onyx and certain of its officers and
directors violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning, among
other things, Onyx's reported financial results during the Class Period.
In particular, it is alleged that the revenue, net income, and earnings
per share reported in these financial statements were materially
inflated by valuing certain assets of Onyx in a manner which violated
GAAP and require restatement. The Complaint alleges that, as a result of
these material false and misleading statements, Onyx=s stock price was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Rabin & Peckel LLP. Contact:
Joseph McBride, Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016, by telephone at (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by facsimile at
(212) 682-1892, by e-mail at email@rabinlaw.com


ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Contests Shareholder Suit in CO over Common Stock Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 26, 1999, certain shareholders filed a class action lawsuit (Case
No. 99 CV 349) against the Company, its directors and certain former
directors challenging certain actions that the plaintiffs allege were
taken in response to the unsolicited tender offer for the Company's
outstanding common stock commenced by Whitman's Candies, Inc. on May 10,
1999. The bidder withdrew the tender offer on June 7, 1999. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 30, 1999. The plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief and unspecified compensatory damages together
with prejudgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees and expert witness'
fees.

The action was filed in the District Court for the City and County of
Denver. It has been moved to La Plata County, Colorado, the county in
which the Company's principal offices are located. On July 20, 1999, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On December 15, 1999, the
court dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims were
derivative in nature, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy certain
requirements for bringing a derivative action and the plaintiffs could
not bring a direct action. The plaintiffs have until January 29, 2000 to
appeal the order of dismissal.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend any claims asserted by them if the
dismissal is appealed.

(Case: Harbor Finance Partners, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Franklin E. Crail, Gary S. Hauer, Gerald A. Kien,
Lee Mortenson, Everett A. Sisson, Fred Trainor and Rocky Mountain
Chocolate Factory, Inc., Case No. 99 CV 349.)


STB SYSTEMS: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired a significant amount of STB Systems,
Inc stock during August 25, 1997 to May 1,1999.

The complaint charges that the company and its controlling insiders
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the company issued a series of false and
misleading statements to the market regarding demand for the company's
products, while failing to disclose that due to ongoing quality
problems, two of STB's largest customers had informed the defendants
that they would no longer accept or pay for defective STB products. The
defendants took advantage of the inflated price of STB stock to sell
approximately $66 million worth of STB stock at artificially inflated
values. The complaint particularizes how the company's management
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and specifies the
company's false statements and omitted material facts.

For any inquiries concerning this lawsuit, please contact Jeffrey R.
Krinsk at Finkelstein & Krinsk, the Koll Center, 501 West Broadway,
Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101 by calling toll free 877-493-5366 or
e-mail at fk@class-action-law.com or fax at 619-238-5425.


SUNSTAR HEALTHCARE: Shepherd & Geller Files Securities Lawsuit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Shepherd & Geller, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
behalf of all individuals and institutional investors that purchased the
common stock of SunStar Healthcare, Inc. between November 13, 1998 and
December 14, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges that certain officers and directors of the company
violated the federal securities laws by providing materially false and
misleading information about the company's business, financial
condition, earnings and future prospects. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the defendants caused the company to fail to take adequate
reserves to pay foreseeable healthcare claims and, as a result, the
company materially overstated its income and earnings per share at all
times during the Class Period. As a result of these false and misleading
statements the company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the class period. When the truth about the company was revealed,
the price of the stock dropped significantly.

For more details on the above-mentioned lawsuit, you may contact
Jonathan M. Stein of Shepherd & Geller, LLC, Boca Raton at 561/750- 3000
or toll free at 1-888-262-3131 or via e-mail at
jstein@classactioncounsel.com


TD WATERHOUSE: Dennis J. Johnson Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Dennis J. Johnson and Shalov Stone & Bonner filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who maintained
Internet trading accounts at TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc. or
its predecessor company, Waterhouse Securities, Inc., and who suffered
losses when Waterhouse executed previously-canceled securities trades
although Waterhouse had confirmed the cancellation of those trades.

The plaintiff alleges that Waterhouse and its President, John H. Chapel
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The plaintiff further alleges that Waterhouse violated the federal
securities laws by falsely representing to investors that they had
successfully canceled securities trades and then executing those
transactions. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Waterhouse
unlawfully paid itself commissions in connection with those unauthorized
trades and related transactions executed by Waterhouse to liquidate the
unauthorized trades or to generate funds to pay for those transactions.

For more information concerning this lawsuit, please contact Dennis
Johnson of the Law Office of Dennis J. Johnson (LODJJ@AOL.com) by
telephone (802) 862-0030 or 1-888-459-7855 (toll free) at 1690 Williston
Road, South Burlington, VT 05403; or James Bonner of Shalov Stone &
Bonner (Jim@lawssb.com) by telephone 212-686-8004 at 276 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 704, New York, NY 10001.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Consumers File 3 Suits in NY over Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers filed three lawsuits in New York and California on February 9
against the leading tobacco companies, contending the companies had
conspired to fix the prices of cigarettes sold in those states since
1993.

The lawsuits came a day after cigarette wholesalers filed a separate
action in Washington, accusing tobacco companies of meeting in secret
since at least the 1980's to fix prices throughout the world.

Consumers' suits against the Philip Morris Companies, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings and others seek class-action status on behalf of all
people who bought cigarettes in New York and California since Nov. 1,
1993. The complaints accuse the industry of participating in meetings
"in which future price increases for cigarettes were discussed, agreed
upon and implemented."

A Philip Morris spokesman called the allegations "simply frivolous."
Similarly, a Reynolds spokesman said the company did not believe there
was any basis to the suits.

Named as other defendants are British American Tobacco P.L.C.'s Brown &
Williamson Tobacco unit; the Loews Corporation's Lorillard unit; and the
Liggett Group, a unit of Brooke Group Ltd. (The New York Times, February
10, 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.   Romeo John D. Piansay, Jr., editor, Theresa Cheuk,
Managing Editor.

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  * * *