CAR_Public/000229.MBX                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, February 29, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 42

                              Headlines

ATLANTA: Suit May Decide Water Rates for Unincorporated Fulton County
BNC MORTGAGE: Receives CA, DE Suits in Response to Going Private Buyout
CADENCE DESIGN: Milberg Weiss Sues over Illegal Payoffs in OrCAD Buy
COINMACH CORPORATION: Acquisition Proposal Spawning Suit Terminates
COSMO SECURITIES: Settles Securities Suit in Japan with Reconciliation

GORAN, SYMONS:  Companies Receive Shareholder Complaint Filed in IN
HAGEMEYER P.P.S.: Sued for Illegal Payoffs Re Purchase of Vallen Corp.
MARINER POST-ACUTE: Bankruptcy Stays Colorado Consumer Protection Suit
MT. PROSPECT: Alleged Racism of Police Puts Driving Data in Spotlight
MUSICMAKER.COM: Responds to Press Release of Securities Suit in CA

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Cautions Shareholders of Litigation's Adverse Effects
RAVISENT TECHNOLGIES: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in PA
RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Suit in PA
RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in PA
RUBIN MONTGOMERY: Action Groups Win Award for Low-Income Tenants in PA

ST. JOHN'S: Parents Allege Racism at Military Academy In Wisconsin
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Company Believes Shareholders Abandoned Suit
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Qtr. 4 Brings Final Resolution to Securities Suit
UNISYS CORPORATION: Company Will Defend Against Shareholders' Suits
UNITED SHIPPING: Mediation Process Begins in Employee Vehicle Use Case

UPGRADE INTERNATIONAL: Responds to Charges in Milberg's Press Release

                           *********

ATLANTA: Suit May Decide Water Rates for Unincorporated Fulton County
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A pending court case against the city of Atlanta may decide how much
more unincorporated Fulton County residents should pay for city-provided
water than city residents. With state-mandated negotiations between the
city and the county at a standstill and a deadline looming, a lawsuit
filed by a group of Fulton residents may decide the issue. If the
plaintiffs win their lawsuit, the city could end up paying as much as $
30 million in reimbursements to outside water customers for past
inequitable billings.

Even city officials agree that the additional 34 percent that Atlanta
charges 33,000 homes and businesses outside the city for water is
significantly higher than outside experts hired to determine a fair
charge have recommended. A January letter from Atlanta Chief Operating
Officer Larry Wallace to Fulton County Manager Thomas Andrews recommends
that the city reduce the additional charge from 34 percent to 26
percent.

But the plaintiffs in the suit say that even 26 percent extra is far
more than they should have to pay for their water service. "There's no
justification except that they (city officials) have monopoly power,"
said Eva Galambos, one of the seven lead plaintiffs in the suit filed
against the city last year.

More than 40 Sandy Springs residents plan to travel by bus to the Fulton
County Courthouse to attend a hearing before Fulton County Superior
Court Judge Alice Bonner on Atlanta's motion to dismiss the suit.

If Bonner rejects the city's motion, the suit probably will determine
what, if any, difference outside water customers will pay the city.
Recommendations from a variety of experts range from no difference at
all to as much as 21 percent. "It's undisputed by the experts that the
34 percent differential can't be justified," said David Pope, the
plaintiffs' attorney. In addition to changing the rates for the future,
Pope's suit asks the court to reimburse all outside water customers for
overcharges going back six years. If the court finds that no difference
can be justified, as an expert for the plaintiff has testified, those
payments could total $ 30 million.

City Attorney Susan Pease Langford is tight-lipped about the lawsuit,
but said the city does see its water rates to outside customers as
"negotiable at some point." Fulton County Attorney O.V. Brantley said
that she will recommend to county commissioners that they allow her to
file suit against the city over water rates. The county also could
intervene in the customers' suit.

A decision on the water rates must be rendered by March 1. (The Atlanta
Journal and Constitution, February 25, 2000)


BNC MORTGAGE: Receives CA, DE Suits in Response to Going Private Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BNC Mortgage, Inc., (NASDAQ/NM:BNCM) announced that two class action
lawsuits have been filed, one in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Orange County, California and one in the Court of Chancery
in Delaware by purported stockholders of the Company alleging a breach
of fiduciary duties and seeking damages and other relief in response to
the Company's announcement that it had signed a merger agreement with an
entity formed by an investor group led by senior members of the
Company's management pursuant to which the public stockholders of the
Company would receive $10.00 per share in cash. The Company and the
other defendants named in the law suits deny breaching their fiduciary
duties and/or self dealing in connection with the proposed merger.

BNC Mortgage Inc. is a specialty finance company engaged in the business
of originating, purchasing and selling, on a whole loan basis for cash,
conforming and non-conforming, residential mortgage loans secured by
one-to-four family residences.


CADENCE DESIGN: Milberg Weiss Sues over Illegal Payoffs in OrCAD Buy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com)announces that a class action has
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of persons who tendered shares of OrCAD Inc.
(Nasdaq:OCAD) to Cadence Design Systems Inc. (NYSE:CDN) and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, CDSI Acquisition Corp., in connection with
Cadence's purchase of the outstanding shares of OrCAD at $13.00 per
share.

The complaint charges Cadence and certain of its senior executives with
violations of the federal securities laws arising out of defendants'
unlawful payments to senior OrCAD executives to obtain their support in
consummating the Tender Offer and their agreement to tender their own
shares. Plaintiff alleges that by offering to pay special payments to
senior OrCAD executives, defendants have violated the provisions of
Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC
regulations promulgated thereunder.

Contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg
Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at wsl@mwbhl.com


COINMACH CORPORATION: Acquisition Proposal Spawning Suit Terminates
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 18, 1999, K. Reed Hinrichs v. Stephen R. Kerrigan, et al., a
purported class action lawsuit, was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, Newcastle County naming Coinmach Corporation and certain of
its executive officers as defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants are breaching their fiduciary duty to the Company's public
shareholders by selling the Company for inadequate compensation. The
matter has been stayed by agreement of the parties. On February 3, 2000,
GRKC Holding Company, LLC, whose acquisition proposal was the subject of
the lawsuit, withdrew its proposal to acquire the Company's common
stock. Based on the allegations contained in the complaint and the
withdrawal of the acquisition proposal, management believes that this
action will not have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.


COSMO SECURITIES: Settles Securities Suit in Japan with Reconciliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Daiwa Bank, Limited announced that the lawsuit raised against its
consolidated subsidiary, Cosmo Securities, Ltd., had been settled with
reconciliation dated on February 28, 2000.

In April 1997, MK Finance Co, Ltd instituted a lawsuit against the
Subsidiary for allegedly 3.5 billion yen of damages caused by securities
transactions with the Subsidiary. The case has been before the Tokyo
District Court since then, and the Subsidiary decided to comply with the
recommendation by the Tokyo District Court to settle the case by
reconciliation with the Plaintiff.

Under the Terms of Reconciliation, Cosmo will pay the Plaintiff 3,275
million yen for the reconciliation. The Subsidiary will incur
extraordinary losses equivalent in amount to the reconciliation payment
during the current fiscal year which ends on March 31, 2000. However,
revision of the previous consolidated earnings forecast of the Bank,
which was announced on November 22, 1999, according to Daiwa will not
become necessary by this fact. (Regulatory News Service, February 28,
2000)


GORAN, SYMONS:  Companies Receive Shareholder Complaint Filed in IN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Goran Capital Inc. (Nasdaq: GNCNF) (Toronto: GNC), and Symons
International Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SIGC), announced that a complaint for
a class action alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has been filed against the Company,
certain officers, and certain directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants rendered false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning financial condition and business
prospects of the Company, as well as the financial benefits that would
inure to the Company and its shareholders. The Company believes that the
allegations of wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint are without merit,
and intends to vigorously defend the claims brought against it.

The announcement says that Goran Capital Inc. (Nasdaq: GNCNF) (Toronto:
GNC) and Symons International Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SIGC) are the 12th
largest nonstandard automobile insurers in the United States. IGF
Insurance Company is the fifth largest insurer of crops in the United
States and writes business in 46 states plus Canada.


HAGEMEYER P.P.S.: Sued for Illegal Payoffs Re Purchase of Vallen Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com)announces that a class action has
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on behalf of persons who tendered shares of Vallen Corp.
(Nasdaq:VALN) to Hagemeyer P.P.S. North America Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Shield Acquisition Corp., in connection with
Hagemeyer's purchase of the outstanding shares of Vallen at $25.00 per
share.

The complaint charges Hagemeyer and certain of its senior executives
with violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
defendants' unlawful payments to senior Vallen executives to obtain
their support in consummating the Tender Offer and their agreement to
tender their own shares. Plaintiff alleges that by offering to pay
special payments to senior Vallen executives, defendants have violated
the provisions of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the SEC regulations promulgated thereunder.

Contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg
Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at wsl@mwbhl.com


MARINER POST-ACUTE: Bankruptcy Stays Colorado Consumer Protection Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 1996, a class action complaint was asserted against
GranCare in the Denver, Colorado District Court, Salas, et al v.
GranCare, Inc. and AMS Properties, Inc. d/b/a Cedars Healthcare Center,
Inc., case no. 96-CV-4449. The lawsuit asserted five claims for relief,
including third-party beneficiary, tortious interference and negligence
per se causes of action arising out of quality of care issues at a
healthcare facility formerly owned by GranCare. Pursuant to the Third
Amended Complaint, the class claims were finally identified as
third-party beneficiary of contract; breach of contract; tortious
interference with contract; fraud; and negligence per se. In addition to
the class claims, the named plaintiffs each asserted claims for
promissory estoppel and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act.

March 15, 1998, the Court entered an Order in which it certified a class
action in the matter. On June 10, 1998, the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss all claims and Motion for Summary Judgment Precluding Recovery
of Medicaid Funds and these motions were partially granted by the Court
on October 30, 1998. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration was denied
by the Court on November 19, 1998, the Court's decision was certified as
a final judgment on December 10, 1998, and plaintiffs then filed a writ
with the Colorado Supreme Court and an appeal with the Colorado Court of
Appeal. This Supreme Court writ has been denied, the Court of Appeal
matter has been briefed and Oral Argument has been set for January 18,
2000. In accordance with the Company's voluntary filing under Chapter 11
of the United States Bankruptcy Code and more particularly, Sec. 362 of
that Code, this matter was stayed on January 18, 2000. The Company will
continue in its opposition to all appeals and further intends to
vigorously contest the remaining allegations of class status.


MT. PROSPECT: Alleged Racism of Police Puts Driving Data in Spotlight
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A seemingly disproportionate number of Hispanics get hauled down to the
Mt. Prospect Police Department for offenses such as driving without a
license. It's a volatile issue that has already hurt the village in one
federal lawsuit and is being raised in three others.

Police critics say the arrest figures show the village is selectively
enforcing the law, targeting Hispanics. But the village's lead
investigator says the figures may show only that Hispanics are
statistically more likely to commit certain offenses. For example, "a
higher percentage of Hispanics don't have driver licenses," said Terry
Ekl, a lawyer who also represents Mt. Prospect Police Chief Ronald
Pavlock in one of the lawsuits. "That's simply a fact of life."

Ekl has not said what data, if any, he will use in support of the idea
that even-handed enforcement can lead to more arrests of Hispanics. But
the issue is a highly charged one, and the village has a lot riding on
the outcome.

When it comes to ethnic groups and traffic offenses, hard data are hard
to come by. The Illinois secretary of state's office, for example,
doesn't record the ethnic background of licensed drivers.

But some researchers have expressed concerns about Hispanics and their
driving practices. In 1998, the Midwest Latino Health Research, Training
and Policy Center in Chicago and researchers from other organizations
conducted five focus groups for a report on Hispanics and motor vehicle
safety. They listened to groups of Hispanics in Cicero, Waukegan and
Rolling Meadows. The two focus groups that were conducted in Rolling
Meadows included residents of Mt. Prospect. The resulting report
concluded that "a substantial number were driving without a license" and
that "when participants reported having insurance, it tended to be
limited to liability coverage, due to their socioeconomic status."

Jose Arrom, research coordinator for the Midwest Latino Health Research,
Training and Policy Center, cautioned that there is no way to know from
the focus groups how widespread these problems are or how Hispanic
drivers compare with other groups. But he noted that some participants
were recent immigrants without much driver training. "We really need to
beef up our safety education with those populations," Arrom said. "When
we did our groups, we would bring state driving manuals with us, and
people would just grab them up."

Also in 1998, the Metropolitan Chicago Information Center, a
not-for-profit research group, surveyed 3,116 households by phone to
find out who owned various types of insurance. About 92 percent of the
white households surveyed reported having auto insurance, but just 64
percent of the Hispanic households did, the group said.

In some cases, city-dwelling Latinos may not own cars, said Lolita
Sereleas, a senior consultant for the group. But she said the key issue
is that insurance companies aren't doing enough to reach the Hispanic
community.

None of this explains the arrest patterns in Mt. Prospect, according to
Keith Hunt, the attorney battling the village in three
employment-discrimination lawsuits filed by Mt. Prospect police
officers. The village also faces a civil rights suit brought by a
Hispanic motorist and a Justice Department preliminary inquiry into
allegations of racial profiling by its police.

In a case tried last month, Hunt presented evidence that Hispanics have
accounted for more than 45 percent of arrests in the village over the
past five years--even though estimates of the village's Hispanic
population range from 6 percent to 12 percent. A jury concluded that
Hunt's client, fired Police Officer Javier Martinez, had been
discriminated against and awarded him $1.2 million.

Small disparities in arrest figures might be explained by socioeconomic
factors, said Michael Rodriguez with the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund in Chicago. "If it's grossly disproportionate to
the population, I think it's an indication that some racial profiling is
going on."

Mt. Prospect, like most communities, does not keep data on how often
police stop minority drivers. But Ekl has said a preliminary analysis of
traffic tickets has not shown the police to be less than even-handed.

Hispanics get about 18.7 percent of all traffic tickets written in Mt.
Prospect and account for 12 percent of the population, according to work
done by the village's expert, Stanford University professor John
Donohue, and a private market research firm.

If Ekl needs more analysis of whether Hispanics commit more of certain
types of offenses in Mt. Prospect, Donohue could be the one to provide
it. As an expert defending the Illinois State Police's drug interdiction
team against racial-profiling allegations in a suit brought by the
American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of minority motorists, he
concluded in 1999 that low-income minorities would be more likely to
seek out the drug trade as way to make money.

Donohue's report helped beat back an attempt by the ACLU to gain
class-action certification for the suit. The ACLU has appealed that
ruling. Arrom said it was fairly common to hear Hispanic focus group
members talk about problems with licenses and insurance. But they did
complain of other problems too. As the researchers noted in their
conclusion, "police actions such as traffic stops were thought to be
arbitrary and discriminatory." (Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2000)


MUSICMAKER.COM: Responds to Press Release of Securities Suit in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Provider of music on the internet musicmaker.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: HITS)
announces that it has been made aware that at approximately 8 p.m.
Eastern Time on February 25, 2000, the Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy
transmitted a press release via PR Newswire providing notice that "a
Class Action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons who purchased the common stock of musicmaker.com, Inc.
between July 7, 1999 and November 15, 1999, inclusive." The Company
claims it has not received nor had an opportunity to review the
complaint referenced in the February 25 press release and has no
knowledge as to the specific allegations underlying the claims contained
therein and is therefore not in a position to comment on any allegations
contained in such complaint.

The Company says it is one of the largest Internet providers of custom
CDs and digital downloading of licensed music on the Internet with
offices in New York City and Reston, Virginia. The company claims it has
an on line library of over 250,000 tracks from over 125 labels.

The company was founded by Robert Bernardi, Cofounder of PictureTel and
TranSwitch, Raju Puthukarai, former President of RCA/BMG Music and Video
Club and President of Warner Music Media and Irwin H. Steinburg, former
Chairman and CEO of PolyGram Records, USA.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Cautions Shareholders of Litigation's Adverse Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 1997, a purported class action was filed in California
Superior Court on behalf of all persons who purchased Common Stock in
Quality Systems, Inc., between June 26, 1995 and July 3, 1996. The
complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, as well as other defendants not affiliated with the Company,
violated sections of the California Corporations Code by issuing
positive statements about the Company that allegedly were knowingly
false, in part, in order to assist the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in selling Common Stock at an inflated price in
the Company's March 5, 1996 public offering and at other points during
the period specified.

On May 14, 1997, a second purported class action was filed in the same
court essentially repeating the allegations of the April 22, 1997 suit.
On July 1, 1997, a third purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court repeating essentially the same factual allegations
as the April 22, 1997 suit and purports to state claims under the
Federal securities laws. The Company and its named officers and
directors deny all allegations of wrongdoing made against them in these
suits, consider the allegations groundless and without merit, and intend
to vigorously defend against these actions.

On March 23, 1999, a purported class action and derivative complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, on behalf of all non-director shareholders, and derivatively on
behalf of the Company, alleging that certain directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly entrenching themselves in
their positions of control, failing to ensure that third-party offers
involving the Company were fully and fairly considered, and/or failing
to conduct a reasonable inquiry to assure the maximization of
shareholder value. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, an accounting of monetary damages allegedly suffered by
plaintiff and the purported class, and attorneys' fees. The named
directors deny all allegations of wrongdoing made against them in this
suit, consider the allegations groundless and without merit, and intend
to vigorously defend against the action.

"The pending Federal and state securities actions and the derivative
action are in the early states of procedure. Consequently, at this time
it is not reasonably possible to estimate the damage, or the range of
damages, if any, that the Company might incur in connection with such
actions. However, the uncertainty associated with substantial unresolved
litigation may be expected to have an adverse impact on the Company's
business. In particular, such litigation could impair the Company's
relationships with existing customers and its ability to obtain new
customers. Defending such litigation will likely result in a diversion
of management's time and attention away from business operations, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations and financial condition. Such litigation may also have the
effect of discouraging potential acquirors from bidding for the Company
or reducing the consideration such acquirors would otherwise be willing
to pay in connection with an acquisition," the Company cautions its
shareholders in its latest quarterly earnings report.


RAVISENT TECHNOLGIES: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in PA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The the law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. gives notice that a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District for Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Ravisent Technologies, Inc. (NASD:RVST)
between July 15, 1999 and February 17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that Ravisent and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the
Complaint, defendants commenced and engaged in a scheme to artificially
inflate the revenues and profits of Ravisent by improperly recording
revenues on contracts in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles in order to accomplish the Company's Initial Public Offering
("IPO") at the maximum price per share, and to then create the
expectation in the market that Ravisent was an increasingly profitable
company. Pursuant to their scheme, defendants determined to effectuate
the IPO during the fiscal quarter so that there would be no current
period certified financial statements of Ravisent included.

On February 18, 2000, defendants announced that the release of its 1999
audited financial statements would be delayed due to final audit
procedures as a result of its discussions with its independent auditors
concerning Ravisent's having inappropriately recognized revenue in 1999
on certain contracts. As a result of this announcement, Ravisent's share
price plunged $9 to close at $18 9/18 on traded volume in excess of
3,500,000 shares.

Contact plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman toll-free at 888/844-5862
or via E-mail at classaction@spectorandroseman.com and for more detailed
information about the firm please visit website at
http://www.spectorandroseman.com


RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Suit in PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross announces that pursuant to Section
21(D)(A)(3)(a)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Notice is
hereby given that on February 25, 2000, a class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Ravisent Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:RVST)
between July 15, 1999 through February 17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges certain of Ravisent officers with violations of
Section 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the
Complaint, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding Ravisent's revenue recognition policy, revenues and
income.

Contact: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan Gross, Esq. Tina
Moukoulis, Esq. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pa. 19102,
Telephone: 800/849-3120 or 215/561-3600, E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or tina@bernardmgross.com
Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. hereby gives notice that a class
action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the common stock of Ravisent Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVST)
at artificially inflated prices during the period July 15, 1999 through
February 17, 2000 ("Class Period") and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint charges Ravisent and certain of its senior officers and/or
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued false
and misleading statements about the Company's revenues and profits which
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices during the Class Period.

Contact: Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. Robert P. Frutkin, Esquire
Barbara A. Podell, Esquire 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 E-mail:
sfprpc@op.net


RUBIN MONTGOMERY: Action Groups Win Award for Low-Income Tenants in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas awarded $2.6 Million to Over 1,500
Class Action participants in a suit against Rubin Montgomery Realty
(RMR), following a multi-year court battle between low-income residents
of Philadelphia and RMR.

The situation began around April 1994 when a TAG staff member
distributed flyers that raised questions concerning RMR's business
practices targeting low-income tenants, and those with bad credit
seeking to buy homes. RMR's advertised program included a credit repair
component that purported to assist those with bad credit with resolving
their credit problems. RMR charged a $600 non-refundable fee for its
services regardless of the outcome received by potential homebuyers. TAG
received numerous complaints from tenants regarding RMR's program. While
TAG explored the possibilities of helping those low-income consumers,
RMR sued TAG and others for defamation based upon the flyer distributed
by the TAG staff member. The suit requested $10 million. In early 1998,
after several weeks of trial, a jury found in favor of TAG regarding the
alleged libeling of RMR. After CLS investigated numerous complaints from
low-income individuals, CLS filed a consumer fraud class action
complaint against RMR. Recently, TAG learned that the Court of Common
Pleas found that RMR committed violations of the Pennsylvania Consumer
Protection Law and assessed treble (triple) damages -- $ 2.6 million.

In addition to the class action initiated by CLS, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania launched its independent investigation and initiated
license revocation proceedings. On September 30, 1997, the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs issued
a letter of intent to prosecute James Montgomery and Bernie Rubin to
revoke their real estate licenses.

In its announcement, TAG thanks its allies for providing support and
assistance during the past several years, and those Philadelphians who
came forward. TAG expresses thanks to the law firms of Langsam Stevens &
Morris LLP and Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads for defending TAG
in this complex civil litigation.

TAG also expresses confidence of surviving RMR's appeal at the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania.


ST. JOHN'S: Parents Allege Racism at Military Academy In Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Chicago-area parents with a lawsuit pending against a
military academy near Milwaukee wants the federal government to
investigate their allegations of anti-Semitism and racism at the school.

On February 24, the parents of six former students filed complaints with
the U.S. Department of Defense and the inspector general's office in the
Justice Department, alleging administrators at St. John's Northwestern
Military Academy harassed and emotionally abused Jewish cadets and
tolerated an atmosphere of anti-Semitism and bigotry. "This is not
college prep at its best, as their ads state," said Gary Meyers, the
lead plaintiff in the case. "This is like a nightmare from the 'Lord of
the Flies.'"

The school, according to the federal complaint, harassed Jewish cadets
who wished to observe religious holidays, coerced participation in
non-Jewish religious services and prevented the study of Jewish texts in
preparation for a bar mitzvah.

The school also overlooked gambling and drug use on school grounds, the
lawsuit claims. The suit, which seeks class-action status, asks for $20
million in damages and is pending in Cook County Circuit Court.

Academy officials have denied the allegations, saying that Meyers is
spearheading a baseless crusade against the school because his
14-year-old son, Aaron, was asked to withdraw for academic shortcomings.
"There is no merit to these allegations," said Ronald Kurth, the
school's president and a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral. "We have been
bringing boys through the difficult adolescent years into manhood for
115 years . . . and our standards are very high," Kurth said.

Kurth noted that the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development this
week dismissed a complaint filed by Meyers alleging his son suffered
discrimination in a matter involving use of the school's chapel for a
bar mitzvah.

In August, Meyers and four other parents sued the college-preparatory
academy in Delafield, Wis., alleging cadets were subjected to beatings
by other students, hazings, brandings and verbal assaults. The parents
turned to the U.S. government to investigate the allegations because the
school receives some federal subsidies and equipment, according to the
complaint. Kurth, however, said the school receives no government
funding.

About 20 miles west of Milwaukee, St. John's is a widely known military
boarding school for boys in grades 7 through 12. Nearly half of its
roughly 350 pupils come from Illinois. Founded in 1884, the school
counts among its graduates former U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.)
and Daniel Gerber, founder of baby-food maker Gerber Products Co. Former
President George Bush and his wife, Barbara, visited the school in April
1997. St. John's has no official religious affiliation, although there
is a chaplain and chapel on the 150-acre campus. (Chicago Tribune,
February 25, 2000)


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Company Believes Shareholders Abandoned Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
During the fall of 1999, 16 putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed against Stewart Enterprises, Inc., certain of its directors
and officers and the Company's underwriters in its January 1999 common
stock offering. The suits have been consolidated and the court has
appointed lead plaintiffs as well as lead and liaison counsel for the
plaintiffs.

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 1999 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.

The Company was notified in September 1994 that a suit was brought by a
competitor regarding the Company's acquisition of certain corporations
in Mexico. The former owners of these corporations have agreed to
indemnify the Company should an unfavorable outcome result. There has
been no significant activity regarding this suit since 1996, and the
Company assumes it has been abandoned. Unless there are new
developments, the Company advises that it will provide no further
updates in its regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Qtr. 4 Brings Final Resolution to Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 18, 1996, a class action complaint was filed by the law firm of
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company and
several of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint
alleges that Symantec insiders inflated the Company's stock price and
then sold stock based on inside information that the Company's sales
were not going to meet analysts' expectations. The complaint seeks
damages of an unspecified amount.

The complaint has been refiled twice in state court, most recently on
January 13, 1997, following Symantec's demurrers directed to previous
complaints. On January 7, 1997, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California, based
on the same facts as the state court complaint, for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The district court dismissed that
complaint and plaintiffs served an amended complaint in April 1998.
Symantec's motion to dismiss the new federal complaint was granted in
part, substantially narrowing the complaint. In July 1999, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle these cases on terms that
would have no material financial impact on the Company. In October 1999,
the Federal Court approved the settlement, and in December 1999, the
state court action was also dismissed.


UNISYS CORPORATION: Company Will Defend Against Shareholders' Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of purported class action lawsuits seeking unspecified
compensatory damages have been filed against Unisys Corporation and
various current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania by persons who acquired the Company's
common stock during the period May 4, 1999 through October 14, 1999. The
plaintiffs in these actions allege violations of the Federal securities
laws in connection with statements made by the Company concerning
certain of its services contracts.

These actions, which are in the early stages, include the following:
Frances W. Smith, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, Larry Weinbach, Jack
McHale and Gerald Gagliardi (filed on October 28, 1999); Sam Wietschner,
et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 1, 1999); Larry
Morrison, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 4,
1999); Alex Igdalski and Michael Sayegh, et al. v. Unisys Corporation,
et al. (filed on November 9, 1999); Patrick Yam, et al. v. Unisys
Corporation, et al. (filed on November 12, 1999); Edward L. Slate, et
al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 12, 1999); Joseph
Operman, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 16,
1999); Molly Levin, Custodian for Elizabeth H. Levin, et al. v. Unisys
Corporation, et al. (filed on November 19, 1999); Gary L. Hopkins, et
al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 24, 1999); Marlene
M. and Paul L. Baertschiger, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed
on December 1, 1999); Joseph Lasensky, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et
al. (filed on December 3, 1999); and Robert M. Peters, et al. v. Unisys
Corporation, Lawrence A. Weinbach, James F. McGuirk II, Jack F. McHale
and Gerald Gagliardi (filed on December 3, 1999).

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these actions and
intends to defend them vigorously.


UNITED SHIPPING: Mediation Process Begins in Employee Vehicle Use Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------
During February 2000, United Shipping & Technology, Inc., discloses, the
parties in the Addvensky class action litigation met to continue
mediation and reached a tentative agreement to settle all claims. On May
19, 1998 William F. Addvensky and other similarly situated individuals
filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego against CEDS and one of its subsidiaries.

This involves a suit brought on behalf of drivers who provided services
with their own vehicles and who were paid on a commission basis. The
Plaintiffs allege that they were paid for their services half in the
form of wages and half in the form of expense reimbursement. Based on
the amounts that the Plaintiffs claim were paid as wages, the Plaintiffs
seek damages for alleged underpayment based on California law governing
minimum wages and overtime pay. The Plaintiffs also allege that the
amounts paid in reimbursement were insufficient to cover their expenses.

Plaintiffs seek back pay and reimbursement for any underpayment of wages
that may have been paid at a rate less than the minimum wages for all
hours worked and overtime wages for any overtime hours worked from May
19, 1995 through trial. Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the
disgorgement of any profits that were realized from any alleged unlawful
conduct. Plaintiffs further seek punitive damages, waiting time
penalties, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The case has been
certified as a class. Plaintiffs have indicated they may seek damages in
excess of $20 million.

CEDS has denied the Plaintiffs' allegations and is vigorously defending
this lawsuit. CEDS has filed a declaratory judgment case against its
insurance carrier who has denied coverage.


UPGRADE INTERNATIONAL: Responds to Charges in Milberg's Press Release
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Responding to a News Release issued by Milberg Weiss concerning a class
action suit against Upgrade International Corp. (OTCBB:UPGD), Mr. Daniel
Bland, the President and CEO of Upgrade International Corp., and the
Board of Directors of Upgrade International, Inc., issued the following
statement:

"The Company has not seen nor been served with any complaint as of this
date. Upgrade's position is that the allegations contained in the press
release issued February 24, 1999 are utterly unfounded and have no basis
in fact. The Company will vigorously defend any lawsuits brought against
it."

On Behalf of the Board of Directors,

Daniel Bland, President


                               *********


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  * * *