CAR_Public/000215.MBX                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, February 15, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 32

                             Headlines

AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Ohio Suit Alleges Overcharging Cell Phone Customers
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Delays Annual Meeting Until After Accounting Review
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in IN
BREAST IMPLANT: Woman Sues Fed Govt in Canada for Failure over Safety
CAMERON ASHLEY: TX Jury Makes Inquiries Re Antitrust in Bldg Products

CAMERON ASHLEY: Vows Vigorous Defense of Securities Suit in Georgia
CHURCHES, CANADA: Aboriginals Sexually Abused in Schools Launch Suit
EDWARDS J D: Will Vigorously Defend Securities Complaints Filed in CO
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Polish Forced Laborers Urge Speedier Compensation
ILIFE.COM: Leo W. Desmond Investigates Stock Price Fall Soon after IPO

MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Jackson Wants Legal Analysis on Antitrust Case
MICROSOFT CORP: Says MI Suit over Antitrust Is 1 of 100 Across Nation
MOBIL OIL: Teams Visit Aussi Airports Affected By Contaminated Fuel
POLICY MANAGEMENT: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S. Carolina
PRISON REALTY: Steven E. Cauley Files Expanded Securities Suit in TN

SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Reports on Amended LA Suit Re Common Stock Offer
SYKES ENTERPRISES: Donovan Miller Files Securities Lawsuit in FL
TOBACCO LITIGATON: Toronto Lawyer Raises Concern Re Canada's Suit in US

USDA: Atty. Says Too Many Black Farmers Denied Payment in Fd Settlement

                            *********

AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Ohio Suit Alleges Overcharging Cell Phone Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AirTouch has greatly overcharged its cell phone customers according to a
class action complaint filed by attorney Randy J. Hart of Hahn Loeser
and Parks LLP. The class action alleges that AirTouch has violated
federal law by offering secret deals and secret rates to its preferred
customers, but not to others. "Cellular service is not like selling used
cars," said Hart. "AirTouch has a public license to use the public
airwaves. Under federal law, AirTouch must make the same rates available
to all customers on equal terms. Instead, for years now, AirTouch has
authorized secret deals and discounts called 'concessions' that it gives
only to some customers. These discounts can be as much as hundreds of
dollars per person."

Hart explained, "As with electricity or gas, the law requires that
everyone who is eligible must get the same deal. That's exactly what
we're seeking and what Ohio consumers are entitled to. We are asking
that AirTouch follow the law and provide the same concessions to all
eligible customers, not just the few that they select." Hart also said
there was a simple way to determine if customers are paying too much:
"If you didn't get an extra concession over and above what was publicly
available, you were probably illegally overcharged."

The class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who are currently or
were AirTouch Cellular customers or used AirTouch services during the
past 24 months.

Any current or former Ohio AirTouch Cellular customer that would like
further information may call or write: Randy J. Hart, Esq., Hahn Loeser
& Parks LLP, 200 Public Square Ste. 3300, Cleveland, OH 44114, PH:
216-274-2410, e-mail: rjhart@hahnlaw.com FX: 216-241-2824


ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Delays Annual Meeting Until After Accounting Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A press release by Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP on February 14 says
that Analytical Surveys, Inc. (Nasdaq: ANLT) announced that it was
delaying its annual shareholder meeting until after the completion of
its internal review of contract cost-of-completion projections. A
shareholder of Indianapolis-based Analytical Surveys, Inc. filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana with regard to the company's accounting for its
cost-of-completion contracts. The shareholder seeks damages for
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and has brought the lawsuit on behalf of all investors who
purchased Analytical Surveys common stock during the period January 25,
1999 through January 26, 2000.

The action charges that Analytical Surveys and certain of its officers
and directors misled investors concerning the company's revenues and
earnings and that the company did not prepare its financial statements
in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Analytical
Systems' common stock price dropped approximately 23% after the company
announced that it may be required to restate financial results for its
fiscal year ended September 30, 1999.

Contact: Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP: Chauncey D. Steele IV, Michael
G. Lange, Jeffrey C. Block, Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP, One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109, Tel: (800) 516-9926 E-Mail:
bdplaw@bermanesq.com Website is at http://www.bermanesq.com


ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.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., Inc. during the period of January 25, 1999 and
January 27, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges ANLT 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 additional information on the above-mentioned lawsuit, please
contact plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman, &
Kodroff, P.C., toll free at 1-888-844-5862 or via e-mail at
classaction@spectorandroseman.com or visit website at
http://www.spectorandroseman.com


BREAST IMPLANT: Woman Sues Fed Govt in Canada for Failure over Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Montreal businesswoman wants to launch a class-action suit against the
federal government, alleging it failed to ensure that breast implants
sold in Canada were safe. Manon Doyer filed the motion in court on
February 10 in the name of all breast-implant patients in Quebec.


CAMERON ASHLEY: TX Jury Makes Inquiries Re Antitrust in Bldg Products
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 1998, a subsidiary of the Company and three of its employees
were subpoenaed to provide information to a grand jury of the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, in connection with an
investigation of possible violations of federal antitrust laws in the
aluminum building products industry, including possible violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. No allegations of wrongdoing have been
made against the subsidiary, the employees or the Company.

In February 1998, information was provided in response to the subpoenas
and the grand jury appearance was postponed indefinitely. In November
1998, the Company's three employees were again notified to appear before
a federal grand jury in Ft. Worth, Texas. Such appearance was again
postponed indefinitely. Thereafter, the U.S. Attorney's office agreed to
an informal interview with an officer of the Company in lieu of formal
grand jury testimony. The interview was conducted in June 1999. After
the interview, the U.S. Attorney requested additional information from
the subsidiary. There has been no further activity since the Company
provided these materials to the government in August 1999.


CAMERON ASHLEY: Vows Vigorous Defense of Securities Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 24, 2000 a stockholder of Cameron Ashley Building Products
Inc. filed suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia against
the Company and its individual directors alleging, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duties and unfair dealing in connection with the
proposed merger transaction and seeking to enjoin the merger and,
alternatively, damages. The stockholder is also seeking class action
status and to be certified as the class representative. The Company
believes that this cause of action is without merit and will contest the
plaintiff's claims by all available means.


CHURCHES, CANADA: Aboriginals Sexually Abused in Schools Launch Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia Aboriginals who were sexually abused in two Vancouver
Island residential schools have launched a class-action lawsuit against
the Anglican and United churches and the federal government. Hundreds of
former students are involved. The Anglican Church ran St. Michael's
Residential School in Alert Bay from 1921 to 1969. The United Church ran
Alberni Indian Residential School from 1891 to 1973. Ottawa funded both
schools. (The Toronto Star, February 11, 2000)


EDWARDS J D: Will Vigorously Defend Securities Complaints Filed in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 2, 1999, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against Edwards J D & Co.
and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period between January 22, 1998, and December 3, 1998. The complaint
alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through a series of false
and misleading statements. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on
behalf of all purchasers of J.D. Edwards' common stock during the class
period. Subsequently, two additional suits were filed on behalf of
additional plaintiffs alleging the same violations and seeking the same
recovery as the first suit.

The Company believes these complaints are without merit and will
vigorously defend itself and certain of its officers and directors
against such complaint.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Polish Forced Laborers Urge Speedier Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nazi-era forced laborers complained to Polish Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek
that Germany is dragging its feet in negotiations on how to distribute a
$ 5.2 billion compensation fund. ''Will you have a chance to pressure
the German chancellor to seed up the process of distributing
compensation?'' Stefan Kozlowski, representing an association of former
concentration camp inmates, asked Buzek during a special meeting. He
said time was running out for wartime forced and slave laborers, who are
now mostly in their 80s and often ill.

''Your concern is understandable,'' Buzek said later. ''The government
also is expressing concern and its full determination to push for about
90 percent (of the fund) for direct compensation.''

Poles and others in Eastern Europe have expressed concern about how the
fund will be distributed. Recent talks have tried to settle the issue of
how much money would go to various categories of laborers, and how much
would be spent on administration and a plan to ensure further education
on the evils of the Holocaust.

Buzek emphasized that the compensation issue is the last remaining
obstacle to full Polish-German reconciliation after World War II and the
four-decade Cold War that followed.

Poles are hoping the next round of international negotiations on the
fund, planned for Feb. 17 in Berlin, will be final.

In December, Germany and German companies pledged to set up the
10-billion-mark German Foundation Initiative to compensate millions of
people, mostly from Eastern Europe, forced to labor in support of the
Nazi war machine. It also is intended to protect German companies from
U.S. class action lawsuits. (AP Worldstream, February 11, 2000)


ILIFE.COM: Leo W. Desmond Investigates Stock Price Fall Soon after IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Leo W. Desmond is investigating the events surrounding
the decrease in the stock price of ilife.com, formerly Intelligent Life
Corp. (Nasdaq:ILIF). Shortly after its initial public offering, the
Company issued a press release stating that it suffered a $6,000,000
loss in the March 1999 quarter.

Contact: The Law Office of Leo W. Desmond at 2161 Palm Beach Lakes
Blvd., Suite 204, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, by calling toll free
at 888/337-6663, by email at Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or by visiting
its website at http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Jackson Wants Legal Analysis on Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A few days before friend-of-the-court briefs were due this month in the
Microsoft antitrust trial, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
let it be known through his staff that he was looking for thoughtful
legal analysis to help him craft his final judgment, The Washington Post
reports. That meant quality, not quantity. Jackson made it clear he did
not want to see which side in the titanic legal battle could rally the
most high-powered support to its case.

So when the pro-Microsoft amicus brief was filed, signed by a
constellation of star lawyers, the other side cried foul, leading to a
very unamicable tiff over amicus briefs. "We were given clear direction
to have one signatory to this brief," harrumphed Mike Pettit of ProComp,
the group of Microsoft adversaries that support the government's
antitrust lawsuit.

But Microsoft officials contend that no matter how many lawyers signed
it, their side had only one amicus brief, submitted by the Association
for Competitive Technology, a group largely funded by the Redmond,
Wash., software giant. "They aren't amici to the court. They were
authors of the brief," said Jonathan Zuck, the association's president.

The Washinton Post says that by hiring Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, the
association easily got the brief signed by the firm's two former White
House counsels, Lloyd Cutler and C. Boyden Gray, and its former deputy
solicitor general, Louis Cohento. And then there were the two former
U.S. attorneys general, Griffin Bell of King & Spaulding in Atlanta and
Nicholas Katzenbach. Oh, and another recruit was AT&T's former general
counsel, Howard Trienens of Sidley & Austin in Chicago.

According to The Washington Post, that pitted the Microsoft backers
against little ol' Robert Bork, the former appellate judge viewed as an
architect of modern antitrust law. Bork was retained by ProComp. The
Software and Information Industry Association hired Gary Cohen of
Blumenfeld and Cohen to pen its brief.

On the other hand, Zuck said, the Software and Information Industry
Association took unfair advantage by looking at the Association for
Competitive Technology's filing a day early in order to take a cheap
shot in its own brief, filed a day later. "SIIA took the opportunity to
slam us in their brief," lamented Zuck. "We thought that was pretty
inappropriate. We didn't spend time in our brief trying to pick on
people who felt differently." (The Washington Post, February 14, 2000)


MICROSOFT CORP: Says MI Suit over Antitrust Is 1 of 100 Across Nation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Brighton man has filed what he hopes will be a class-action lawsuit
accusing Microsoft of charging inflated prices for the corporation's
computer programs. The lawsuit, filed in Livingston Circuit Court by
James Barnard, 57, says Microsoft Corp. violated Michigan's Anti-trust
Reform Act and increased prices to ravage customers' pocketbooks. The
lawsuit, filed last month, states that the costs of Microsoft's Windows
and Internet Explorer software programs have been too high for years.

Windows is the widely used operating system for IBM and IBM-compatible
personal computers. Internet Explorer is a browser program for the World
Wide Web. The newest version of Windows, Windows 2000, is due in stores
Feb. 17.

A hearing is scheduled March 3 before Circuit Judge Daniel Burress.
Barnard's lawyer, David Park, would not give details on the lawsuit.

Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said Barnard's lawsuit is one of nearly
100 across the nation filed against the company. He said Microsoft is
trying to get the courts to consolidate all of the suits into as few
cases as possible. "We think it is unfortunate that these lawsuits are
being filed," Cullinan said. "They are clearly not designed to benefit
consumers, but focused on attacking Microsoft, which is just a
successful company." Cullinan said there are four other such lawsuits
filed in southeast Michigan.

Barnard's lawsuit is filed on behalf of any Michigan resident who has
bought, leased or licensed a version of the Windows operating system or
Internet Explorer. The lawsuit claims that Microsoft "by unlawful and
anti-competitive means, including the monopoly leveraging of its market
power in the PC operating systems market, effectively eliminated
competition in the web browser and related markets." Damages are not to
exceed $ 75,000 for each plaintiff in the class-action suit.

Barnard's lawsuit follows a decision late last year by U.S. District
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who after 77 days of testimony, declared
that Microsoft's aggressive use of its monopoly power limited consumer
choices and choked innovation. Jackson currently is considering what
penalties, if any, to level against the software powerhouse. (The
Detroit News, February 14, 2000)


MOBIL OIL: Teams Visit Aussi Airports Affected By Contaminated Fuel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teams of Mobil officers will head out across south-eastern Australia to
talk to pilots and aircraft operators affected by contaminated fuel.

The aviation fuel crisis grounded thousands of planes for several weeks
last month while testing and cleaning procedures were developed and
planes queued to get the all-clear from stretched aircraft engineers.
Two class actions have been launched against Mobil by hundreds of people
in the aviation industry.

Mobil said three teams of aviation and technical specialists and claims
advisers would discuss customers' concerns about avgas contamination and
advise on financial assistance available under the fuel giant's $15
million compensation scheme. Teams will visit airports over three weeks
in Victoria, New South Wales and southern Queensland where suspect avgas
was sold, and airports in Tasmania and South Australia also affected by
groundings.

Mobil aviation manager Craig Stephens said the move supplemented earlier
action to provide field support staff to advise on fuel system testing
and cleaning and to assist with claims for financial support. "Getting
these teams into the field reinforces our commitment to get our
customers back into the air as soon as possible, to assist them with any
urgent financial needs and ensure that they are fully aware of the
compensation programs we have available," Mr Stephens said in a
statement.

"To date Mobil has paid out over $1 million to reimburse customers for
costs associated with aircraft fuel system inspection, testing and
cleanout and to provide financial relief for those in need." "Our
intention is that all those who are eligible will receive fair
compensation for their direct business losses. We hope these field
visits will encourage those affected to take advantage of our offer and
apply for compensation." Mr Stephens said these payouts did not
constitute any admission of liability by Mobil. (AAP Newsfeed, February
14, 2000)


POLICY MANAGEMENT: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S. Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina,
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Policy
Management Systems (NYSE:PMS - news) between October 22, 1998, and
February 9, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Policy Management and certain of its senior
executives with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In
particular, the complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
financial condition, products, technologies and financial statements.
Before the disclosure of the adverse facts described above, certain
members of the Company's senior management sold their personally-held
Policy Management common stock to the unsuspecting public generating
proceeds of over $13 million.

Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP Shareholder Relations
Dept. 1/800-320-5081 endfraud@mwbhlny.com


PRISON REALTY: Steven E. Cauley Files Expanded Securities Suit in TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley announced that they have filed a
securities fraud lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Prison Realty
Trust, Inc. (NYSE: PZN) common stock during the period between June 10,
1999 and December 27, 1999, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This Class
Period represents an enlargement of the June 23, 1999 - December 27,
1999 Class Period of the previous case.

The complaint charges Prison Realty and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants
falsely represented that Prison Realty would be able to pay the
approximately $1.50 per share special dividend necessary for the Company
to maintain its status as a Real Estate Investment Trust. As a result,
the complaint alleges that Prison Realty stock was artificially inflated
throughout the Class Period. However, on December 27, 1999, the Company
announced that it would not pay the one-time special dividend, that it
would suspend payment of its regular dividends, and that Doctor Crants
and Robert Crants would no longer manage the Company. Upon this
announcement, the price of Prison Realty shares collapsed in value,
falling far below the prices at which it traded during the Class Period.

Since the filing of their original complaint on December 30, 1999, the
Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley have received hundreds of calls from
investors, who suffered millions of dollars in losses, and who wish to
actively participate in this case.

Contact: Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A., 888-551-9944, or email,
CauleyPA@aol.com


SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. and others on behalf of the
investors of Sotheby's who purchased or sold the stock during the period
February 11, 1997 and January 29, 2000.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making false and misleading statements in press releases and
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint
alleges that the defendants failed to reveal that during the Class
Period, Sotheby's revenues were both reliant upon, and unsustainable at
those Class Period levels in the absence of an elaborate price fixing
arrangement with Christie's International PLC. The complaint further
alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements artificially
inflated the price of the Company's stock during the Class Period.

Contact: Robert I. Harwood, Esq. (rharwood@whhf.com) or John Halebian,
Esq. (jhalebian@whhf.com) of Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, 488
Madison Avenue, New York New York 10022 877-935-7400 (toll free).


SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who bought Sotheby's
Holdings, Inc. stock between February 11, 1997 and January 29, 2000.

The lawsuit charges Sotheby's 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 Company's
revenues. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to reveal that
during the Class Period, Sotheby's revenues were both reliant upon, and
unsustainable at those Class Period levels in the absence of, an illegal
price fixing arrangement with Christie's International PLC. The
complaint further alleges that defendants' false and misleading
statements artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during
the Class Period.

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


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Reports on Amended LA Suit Re Common Stock Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. reports in its filing with the SEC that the 16
putative securities class action lawsuits, filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, have been
consolidated and the court has appointed lead plaintiffs as well as lead
and liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. The lawsuits were filed during
the fall of 1999, against the Company, certain of its directors and
officers and the Company's underwriters in its January 1999 common stock
offering. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of
Section 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period October 1, 1998 through August 12, 1999.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose allegedly material
information in the prospectus relating to the January common stock
offering and in certain of the Company's other public filings and
announcements. The plaintiffs also allege that these allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions permitted the Chairman of the
Company to sell Company common stock during the class period at inflated
market prices. The plaintiffs seek remedies including certification of
the putative class, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
rescission to the extent any members of the class still hold the
Company's common stock, and such other relief as the court may deem
proper. By February 25, 2000, the Company expects to move to dismiss the
complaint.

This action is in its earliest stages and the outcome of the action and
costs of defending it cannot be predicted at this time. The Company
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously.


SYKES ENTERPRISES: Donovan Miller Files Securities Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan Miller, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
Sykes Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its Officers and Directors, on
behalf of all persons who purchased SYKES securities between July 26,
1999 and February 4, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, SYKES and the two
officer defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, issuing materially false
and misleading statements to the investing public which concealed the
fact that SYKES had employed certain accounting devices and methods
which made it appear revenues were properly recognized when, in fact,
they were not. The complaint further alleges that the price of SYKES's
shares was artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' omissions of
material fact.

Contact: Michael D. Donovan at Donovan Miller, LLC, 1608 Walnut Street,
Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA 19103; phone: 800/619-1677 or 215/732-6020;
e-mail at mdonovan@dmlaw.com or dmlaw@erols.com or visit website at
http://www.dmlaw.com


TOBACCO LITIGATON: Toronto Lawyer Raises Concern Re Canada's Suit in US
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 1999, Ontario Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer announced
that the Ontario government would be suing Big Tobacco to recover costs
incurred by OHIP in the treatment of smoking related diseases. What was
novel about Witmer's announcement was that she planned to bring the
lawsuit in the United States, and further, that she had retained
billionaire American plaintiff lawyer Ron Motley for that purpose.

Witmer explained that the Ontario government expected to recover $40
billion (U.S.) in its lawsuit, and that the claim would be filed under
the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
statute.

Motley, and his South Carolina law firm of Ness, Motley
(http://www.nmlrp.com)were retained on a 20 per cent contingency fee
basis to bring the claim. Should the claim net the $40 billion that
Witmer predicts, Ness, Motley will collect fees of $8 billion (U.S.)
from the Ontario government.

Given such a sweet deal, one would have expected Ron Motley to run to
the courthouse to file the claim. This did not happen. Instead, Ness,
Motley delayed filing Ontario's lawsuit while awaiting the outcome of
the case of Guatemala v. Tobacco Institute et al. (see the decision at
http://www.tobacco.neu.edu).

Guatemala was a test case to decide the ability of foreign governments
to sue American tobacco companies before American courts. Quite a number
of third world countries have brought such claims in the U.S., including
Panama, Columbia, and Bolivia. All of these claims were consolidated
before Justice Paul Friedman in U.S. Federal Court in Washington D.C.

On December 30, 1999, Justice Friedman delivered his judgment in
Guatemala. He dismissed Guatemala's claim on the grounds of remoteness,
and ruled that if Guatemala, or its citizens, had any cause of action
against the tobacco industry, such claims should be brought before
Guatemala's own courts.

Justice Friedman's decision has been appealed, but if it stands, it
effectively bars foreign governments from using American courts to
recover tobacco related health care costs.

(The Guatemala decision probably does not interfere with the Canadian
federal government's smuggling suit against RJR-Macdonald and the
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council filed in Syracuse, New York.)

The basis for Justice Friedman's decision was as follows: "a failure to
apply the remoteness doctrine would permit unlimited suits to be filed.
This concern applies with particular weight in this instance, where
dozens of foreign governments, as well as other foreign health care
payers, might attempt to bring similar suits in United States courts."

Given Justice Friedman's decision, one would expect Ontario to abandon
its plans to bring suit in the U.S., and instead, focus on bringing such
a suit in Canada, as the B.C. government has done. This has not come to
pass, and indeed, it appears likely that the Ontario government will go
ahead with its suit in the U.S., despite the adverse ruling in
Guatemala.

There had been some indication that Ontario might bring an action in
this province, most notably when it passed amendments to the Health
Insurance Act in December 1999. Those amendments give the Ontario
government an independent cause of action against a tortfeasor for the
recovery of OHIP expenses (as opposed to merely a subrogated claim).

Those amendments, however, appear not to have been made to facilitate
bringing a claim in this province. Rather, they are necessary to help
Ontario distinguish its claim in the U.S. from the unsuccessful claims
of Guatemala, and of various union health care funds (see, for example,
Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
171 F.3d).

There are two reasons why Ontario will likely go ahead with its claim in
the U.S., even though such a claim is likely to fail. First, it does not
cost the Ontario government anything to continue with its current
strategy. It hired Ness, Motley on a contingency basis. It only pays if
Ness, Motley wins. Since the Ontario government is not receiving a
monthly bill from its American lawyers, it has no incentive to decide
whether it still makes sense to proceed with the claim. Second, Ness,
Motley has no reason to stop at this point. The firm has cash reserves
in the hundreds of millions of dollars. What does it actually cost it to
file a statement of claim? By filing, it might get a "lowball"
settlement offer from the tobacco industry. And the Harris government
might accept such an offer.

After all, R.J. Reynolds already offered the Canadian federal government
$100 million (U.S.) if the federal government would agree not to proceed
with its smuggling case. The only certainty for Ness, Motley is that if
it doesn't file a claim on Ontario's behalf soon, limitation periods
under RICO will expire.

Should it matter to Ontarians if our government proceeds with a
potentially hopeless lawsuit in the United States? There are a couple of
reasons to be concerned. First, if Ontario launches a suit against the
tobacco industry in the U.S., and then loses, this could present an
obstacle for Ontario to subsequently bring a lawsuit in Canada. For
example, limitation periods in Canada might expire, or the doctrine of
res judicata might somehow come into play. Second, pursuing a hopeless
strategy in the U.S. distracts the Ontario government from taking
constructive steps to control the costs of tobacco use at home. It
allows the Ontario government to say that it is being tough with the
tobacco industry, when in reality, the opposite may be true. And lastly,
the use of American courts and American lawyers to decide important
issues, such as public health policy and alleged corporate misfeasance,
does serious damage to the development of Canada's own justice system.
Canadian lawyers and judges have never had the opportunity to deal with
the complexities of a $40 billion case. And it seems that they never
will get such an opportunity.

Witmer, in announcing Ontario's plans to bring suit in the U.S., said
that the primary reason for doing so was the availability of higher
punitive damage awards. This may be true, at least for individual
American plaintiffs who have been harmed by large corporations, but no
American jury is likely to be sympathetic to a foreign government
plaintiff, even one that is suing the tobacco industry.

Justice, however, should not be about money -although from a financial
standpoint it makes no sense for the Harris government to offer to
enrich an American law firm to the tune of $8 billion, when for a small
fraction of that money, it could greatly improve problems of
accessibility and delay in our own court system.

Fundamentally, justice is about retribution. It is about allowing the
injured and oppressed to have their day in court. Some 45,000 Canadians
a year are killed by the tobacco industry. A successful lawsuit in the
U.S. might enable the province of Ontario to better fund OHIP. It can
never give the people of this province what they really need. It can
never give them justice - the chance to go to an Ontario courtroom and
to finally see the Canadian tobacco industry called to account for its
actions. (The Lawyers Weekly, February 18, 2000)


USDA: Atty. Says Too Many Black Farmers Denied Payment in Fd Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lead attorney in a class-action lawsuit filed by black farmers against
the U.S. Department of Agriculture said too many farmers - about 40
percent - have been denied compensation in the federal settlement. The
settlement, approved by a federal judge in April, ended a lawsuit that
accused the USDA of regularly denying subsidies and other assistance to
black farmers because of their race. "The fight is not over," lawyer
J.L. Chestnut said during the weekend to 200 farmers at a conference
here. "The folks in charge of this lawsuit are too white for me." (The
Orlando Sentinel, February 14, 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  * * *