CAR_Public/000303.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, March 3, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 44

                             Headlines

AETNA INC: CNN Coverage on Wellpoint Takeover Offer of Troubled HMO
AETNA INC: WellPoint's $10 Bil Bid May Jeopardize Blue Cross Purchase
AURORA FOODS: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Complaint
AURORA FOODS: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Lawsuit in CA
B.C. GOVT: Canadian Ct of Ap Quashes Action over Eron Mortgage Collapse

COCA-COLA: Black Employees Appeal against Ruling on Waiver by Laid-offs
CYBERSHIP.COM INC: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
CYBERSHOP.COM INC: James V. Bashian Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
FAMILY GOLF: Dennis J. Johnson Announces Securities Complaint in NY
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Patients File Competing Suits in Painkiller Case

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Talks about Distribution of Fund Go on
HOST MARRIOTT: Special Litigation Committee Asks for 6 Months
HOST MARRIOTT: Texas Multi-Partnership Suits on Hold
INMATES LITIGATION: Hillsborough Inmates Allege Denials of Medical Care
LANGENBERG HAT: Former Employees Sue Shut Down Maker over Sale Deal

MICROSOFT CORP: May Seek Reopening of Workers' Permatemps Case over Pay
OAK TECHNOLOGY: Preparing for Trial on July 5, 2000
PERITUS SOFTWARE: MA Ct OKs Settlement of Securites Suit
PHILJAS: Japanese Executives Indicted for Hillside Collapse Near Manila
PPG INDUSTRIES: Glass Products Price Fixing Settlement Pending

RAINFOREST CAFE: Receives Amended Complaint Re Consideration of Merger
RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in PA
SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Berger & Montague Files Investors' Suit in NY
TD WATERHOUSE: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Suit in New York
TENAFLY BOARD: Residents Sue over School Bond Referendum on Snowy Day

TWA: Workers Say Funds Not Transferred in Timely Manner; Ct OKs Class
VESTRON: $2.8 Mil Settlement Ends Suit over Film Revenue Distribution
VISX, INC: Steven E. Cauley Files Securities Suit in California
VISX, INC.: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit
VISX, INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in California

                           *********

AETNA INC: CNN Coverage on Wellpoint Takeover Offer of Troubled HMO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcast on the Cable News Network on March 2, 2000

    ALLAN DODDS FRANK, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Aetna, the
insurer that built the nation's largest managed health care business
through acquisitions, is now the hunted, not the hunter. The Hartford,
Connecticut based company is considering a ten billion dollar takeover
offer from WellPoint Health Networks and ING America Insurance Holdings.
The takeover offer preceded by one day the resignation of Aetna's
hard-driving chairman Richard Huber. That left the deal on the table for
Huber's replacement, William Donaldson, a long- time Aetna board member,
who co-founded the Wall Street firm Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Aetna was just ripe, and there had been
so many discussions about this type of thing. Mr. Donaldson is clearly
shareholder focused and it doesn't surprise me that somebody decided to
step in and at least take a whack at it.

    DODDS FRANK: For Aetna shareholders, the $70 a share offer would
bring the company's stock valuation back in line with those of its
competitors such as Cigna . Beleaguered by class-action lawsuits and
concerns the company is having trouble integrating acquisitions, such as
Prudential's health care unit, Aetna's stock has dropped from nearly
$100 to about $40 a share in the last year.

Aetna currently has 21 million health care customers and a total
customer base of 47 million people.

WellPoint has more than seven million medical customers and a total of
nearly 30 million people receiving some specialty medical care through
Blue Cross of California and other associates.

(on camera): When he took over as Aetna's chairman, veteran dealmaker
William Donaldson said he was reviewing all the company's option. Aside
from accepting this offer, that could include restructuring, looking for
another buyer or selling off the company's three main lines of
businesses separately to the highest bidders.

Allan Dodds Frank, CNN Financial News, New York.


AETNA INC: WellPoint's $10 Bil Bid May Jeopardize Blue Cross Purchase
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A $ 10 billion bid by WellPoint Health Networks and another company to
acquire Aetna Inc. may jeopardize WellPoint's long-delayed purchase of
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia. Aetna confirmed on March that it
received the takeover offer from California-based WellPoint and an
insurance unit of ING Group. Aetna said it will review the bid.

WellPoint, though, currently has a $ 500 million deal pending to acquire
Cerulean, the parent of Blue Cross of Georgia, the state's largest
health insurer. Aetna is No. 2 in Georgia in terms of membership but is
the top health insurer nationally.

Responding to the news of the Aetna proposal, Charlie Harman, a Blue
Cross vice president, said, "WellPoint and Cerulean remain committed to
closing our merger transaction as soon as possible."

If Aetna accepts the WellPoint-ING acquisition offer --- and it receives
shareholder and regulatory approval --- it could derail the Blue Cross
purchase. Federal or state regulators may decide not to allow WellPoint
to take over both Blue Cross of Georgia and Aetna's operations in the
state.

"Obviously, the offer by WellPoint isn't totally unexpected, due to
Aetna's depressed stock price," said Brent Layton of Atlanta-based
consulting firm Layton & Associates. "The big question is, will
WellPoint go forward with the purchase of Blue Cross? Or does the size
of Aetna locally and nationally satisfy WellPoint's needs?"

If the Blue Cross deal is shelved, it would also end an expected payout
to thousands of shareholders of Cerulean. Those shares would achieve
value only if Blue Cross were acquired.

Currently, a battle over who should receive shares in Cerulean is being
fought in Georgia courtrooms, and the battle has delayed the WellPoint
purchase of Blue Cross. That deal also requires approval from state
Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine.

A collapse of the WellPoint-Blue Cross deal would also mean that private
investors in nonprofit Blue Cross' conversion to a for-profit company
would not receive the expected net profit of about $ 60 million on their
original investment. It would also jeopardize a payment of about $ 80
million in WellPoint stock to a new nonprofit health care foundation in
Georgia.

An acquisition of Aetna would continue the consolidation rampant in the
health insurance industry. Aetna, in fact, recently bought the health
care operations of Prudential, though regulators forced it to sell some
of its operations in Texas.

Aetna's board has not yet responded to the cash-and-stock offer,
received Feb. 24, the day before Aetna suddenly ousted Chief Executive
Officer Richard Huber. He was replaced by board member William
Donaldson.

WellPoint and ING America Insurance Holding offered $ 44 in cash and $
26 in WellPoint common stock for each share of Aetna. Hartford,
Conn.-based Aetna said it will review the offer "in due course." ING
Group, a financial services company, owns Life of Georgia, an Atlanta-
based life insurance company.

Aetna's shares soared after a report of the offer aired on CNBC. The
company's stock has been battered in recent months on concerns about
costs and industrywide class-action litigation, among other issues.
''This is certainly the best news we've had in a long, long time,''
Joseph France, an analyst with Credit Suisse First Boston, told The
Associated Press.

CNBC said Aetna's health insurance business would go to WellPoint, and
that its financial services unit would go to Amsterdam,
Netherlands-based ING. WellPoint is known as an aggressive managed care
company. It's also smaller than Aetna. WellPoint reported revenue of $
7.5 billion in 1999. "On paper, it would seem like a tuna swallowing a
whale," said analyst Edmund Kroll of SG Cowen Securities. "If anyone
could pull it off, it's WellPoint." Kroll said WellPoint is one of the
best operators among health insurers. " From the acquisitions they have
done, they have a very good track record." Its chief executive, Leonard
Schaeffer, is "a very skillful manager, a good leader," Kroll said.
"Aetna is much bigger than WellPoint, but a lot of WellPoint's skills
are exportable."

Aetna, though, has generated turmoil from long-standing disputes with
physicians, notably in Georgia. Last month, three local doctors, the
Medical Association of Georgia and the American Medical Association
filed a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court against Aetna U.S.
Healthcare, accusing the insurer of routinely delaying payments of
medical claims. Aetna also has the highest rate of consumer complaints
among Georgia HMOs, according to a report released recently by the state
Insurance Department. The company said the complaint rate was far higher
than the state agency discussed with the company before the report was
released. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March 2, 2000)


AURORA FOODS: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff filed a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of Aurora Foods, Inc. common stock between
April 28, 1999, and February 18, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued to the investing public financial statements and press
releases concerning Aurora's financial condition and performance
which were false, misleading, deceptive and failed to conform with
both mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission guidelines and
Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures. As a result of these false
and misleading statements, the market price of the Company's
securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period.

For more details on this matter, you may contact plaintiff's counsel
Robert M. Roseman toll-free at 1-888-844-5862 or via e-mail at
classaction@spectorandroseman.com or visit the firm's website at
http://www.spectorandroseman.com


AURORA FOODS: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Lawsuit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit in the in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Aurora Foods, Inc. common stock between April 28,
1999, and February 18, 2000, inclusive.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
issued to the investing public financial statements and press
releases concerning Aurora's financial condition and performance
which were false, misleading, deceptive and failed to conform with
both mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission guidelines and
Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures. As a result of these false
and misleading statements, the market price of the Company's
securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period.

For additional information on the above-mentioned lawsuit, please
contact Marc L. Godino, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody by telephone at
888-388-4605 or at info@secfraud.com via e-mail.


B.C. GOVT: Canadian Ct of Ap Quashes Action over Eron Mortgage Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The B.C. Court of Appeal on February 29 threw out a bid to sue the B.C.
government for negligence over the massive collapse of Eron Mortgage
Corp. But the province's highest court hinted that the Supreme Court of
Canada might want to use the case to spell out more clearly the duty
regulators have to individual investors. In a 70-page ruling, the
three-member appeal court panel quashed a B.C. Supreme Court decision to
certify a class-action lawsuit by Eron investors against the B.C.
registrar of mortgage brokers and the B.C. government. (National Post
(formerly The Financial Post), March 01, 2000)


COCA-COLA: Black Employees Appeal against Ruling on Waiver by Laid-offs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a racial discrimination lawsuit against Coca-Cola
appealed on March 1 a court decision affecting severance benefits for
laid-off employees.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are contesting a ruling by U.S. District Judge
Richard Story that allowed Coca-Cola to require laid-off employees to
give up their right to sue the company if they want to receive enhanced
severance benefits. As a result, black employees who want more lucrative
benefits must sign a release form waiving their rights to participate as
a plaintiff in the discrimination suit, or as a member of a class, if
the judge certifies the case as a class action down the road.

Current and former African-American employees are scheduled to meet on
Saturday March 4 at St. Philip A.M.E. Church in Decatur to discuss this
issue with plaintiffs' attorneys. Some employees believe it is unfair
for the company to include this case in the release form. Instead, they
believe it should be specifically excluded.

But Coca-Cola said it is merely following standard operating procedure
of giving increased severance benefits to limit its future exposure in
litigation. Laid-off employees would still be entitled to regular
severance benefits if they don't sign the release form.

Plaintiffs' attorneys said they will file before May 30 their legal
brief to represent about 2,000 black salaried employees in the United
States. Eight current and former employees filed the suit, alleging that
Coke has discriminated against African-Americans in pay, promotions and
performance evaluations.

The firm has denied the allegations. After plaintiffs' attorneys file
their brief, the company has up to 75 days to file its response. Then
the plaintiffs have up to another 75 days to file a reply to the
company's brief. At a minimum, if both sides use all of their allotted
time, it would take eight months of legal briefs before a hearing could
be held on the issue. The judge, however, has ordered both sides to try
to resolve the suit in settlement talks. (The Atlanta Journal and
Constitution, March 2, 2000)


CYBERSHIP.COM INC: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of
CyberShop.com Inc. (Nasdaq: CYSP) common stock between October 26, 1999
and February 24, 2000 (the "Class Period").

In brief, the Complaint charges that CyberShop and its top executive
officers violated the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges
that defendants caused CyberShop to falsely portray its financial
condition to allow its founder to sell a substantial amount of his
personal CyberShop holdings at artificially inflated prices. In February
2000, defendants belatedly disclosed, among other things, that it would
be abandoning its electronic retailing business and that revenues from
its core operations had actually declined in the third quarter of 1999.
As a result, CyberShop's common stock now trades at less than $4.00 per
share, significantly less than the inflated prices at which insiders
sold a portion of their holdings just three months ago.

If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Mark C. Gardy,
Esq., Nicholas H. Gilbo, Esq. by e-mail at ngilbo@a-g-s.com or Patricia
Toher at ptoher@a-g-s.com ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP, 800-889-3701
(toll free) or 212-889-3700


CYBERSHOP.COM INC: James V. Bashian Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of James V. Bashian filed a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of CyberShop.com. Inc. between October 26, 1999 and
February 24, 2000, inclusive

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

For inquiries concerning this matter, please get in touch with James
V. Bashian, Esq. of LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN at 500 Fifth
Avenue, Suite 2700 New York, New York 10110 by telephone at 212/921-
4110 or 800/556-8856 or via e-mail at lojvb@worldnet.att.net


FAMILY GOLF: Dennis J. Johnson Announces Securities Complaint in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Dennis J. Johnson gives notice that a class action
complaint was filed on February 24, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Family Golf
Centers, Incorporated (Nasdaq:FGCI) common stock during the period May
12, 1998 through August 12, 1999 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges that FGCI and certain of its top officers and
directors violated certain of the securities laws and regulations of the
United States. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during
the Class Period, FGCI misled investors by misrepresenting the Company's
growth and future profitability by failing to reveal problems associated
with its acquisitions.

Contact: The Law Offices of Dennis J. Johnson Dennis J. Johnson, Esquire
or Jacob B. Perkinson, Esquire 1-888-459-7855 LODJJ@aol.com


GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Patients File Competing Suits in Painkiller Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing Georgetown University Medical Center patients who
may have been exposed to infections by a drug-abusing hospital worker
filed dueling lawsuits, each seeking to represent the estimated 600
patients who will be tested for HIV, hepatitis and other viruses.

The outbreak of legal activity moves the episode from Georgetown's busy
laboratory waiting rooms, where 142 patients have gone so far for free
screenings, to the dockets of D.C. Superior Court.

Even if it is later shown that no patient contracted a life-threatening
virus from the activities of X-ray technician Jeffrey L. Royal, the
affected patients were seriously damaged, the lawyers said.

"If someone told me that I may have HIV or hepatitis, and I had to wait
for a blood test to come back, you could not pay me enough to be
subjected to that type of anguish even for two or three days," said
lawyer Keith W. Donahoe.

Both lawsuits allege that Georgetown's elite medical center failed to
protect patients by not adopting American Hospital Association
guidelines that call for universal pre-employment drug screening.

The lawyers say such screening might have identified Royal as a drug
abuser before the university hired him in September and assigned him to
the interventional radiology unit.

Medical center officials have acknowledged that executives resisted drug
screening out of a desire to be consistent with the hiring policies at
the university as a whole.

The hospital fired Royal on Feb. 2 after a nurse and a clinical manager
found him siphoning the synthetic narcotic painkiller fentanyl from an
infusion pump, police said.

In a videotaped statement to police, Royal said that for some time he
had been removing fentanyl and another drug, Versed, from dispensing
pumps and intravenous lines and replacing the clear liquids with saline
solution so he could use the painkillers himself, police said.

Royal, 40, of Kensington, has been arraigned on a felony charge of
tampering with consumer products and, if convicted, faces a maximum
10-year prison term and a $ 250,000 fine. Health officials fear he may
have put salt water into drug lines or dispensing pumps with discarded
needles that he recovered from infectious waste containers.

The needles could have been contaminated by Royal or by viruses carried
by the patients in whom they were originally injected. Royal has not
commented. His attorney, Jeffrey O'Toole, said his client did not
endanger any patient.

In the past two weeks, Georgetown has notified 466 patients who
underwent interventional radiology procedures other than cardiac
catheterizations during Royal's employment, from Sept. 8, 1999, through
Feb. 2. An additional 100 to 150 patients are likely to be notified in
coming weeks, officials said.

Legal experts say the claims likely will be consolidated under a single
judge, who then will decide whether to certify the case as a class
action that automatically covers any affected patient who does not
object to being represented.

That judge then will appoint one or both groups of lawyers as the
official class representative. It is possible that other lawyers will
file similar lawsuits, which could lead the judge to exclude them or to
form a committee of lawyers to steer the plaintiffs' litigation.

The first group to reach the courthouse filed suit on behalf of two
named plaintiffs, Carolyn Datlow Jousse, a Potomac woman who said she
suffered excruciating pain after cancer surgery, and Edward Hillegass, a
Falls Church postal worker who underwent a diagnostic procedure on his
spine in December.

Both are represented by Donahoe, of the District, and Jon D. Pels, of
Rockville.

The other case was filed by D.C. lawyer Joseph Cammarata on behalf of a
38-year-old Virginia woman who underwent a radiological procedure in
January. Cammarata asked the court to seal the woman's name. "She is
concerned about her well-being and her relationship with her family and
husband and also her standing in her workplace and in her community,"
Cammarata said.

Cammarata represented Paula Jones in her lawsuit against President
Clinton and is leading a class action against the District on behalf of
relatives of mentally retarded wards of the city who died in its
custody.

He too said that damage has been done to his clients even if it turns
out that no one was infected by Royal's actions. "There is a claim for
the emotional upheaval, the potential for a time bomb within you that
you have no control over," he said. "The fear of an infectious disease
for which there is no cure just blows the mind." (The Washington Post,
March 2, 2000)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Talks about Distribution of Fund Go on
---------------------------------------------------------
Negotiators for five eastern European countries underscored their demand
that at least 90 percent of a compensation fund for Nazi-era forced and
slave laborers should go directly to victims. Representatives from
Poland, the Czech Republic, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine said they had
agreed to stay united on the issue during a meeting in Warsaw to plan
joint strategy before the next round of talks on the fund March 7 in
Washington.

The five countries, along with Jewish groups, class-action lawyers and
officials from the United States and Germany, are involved in talks on
how to distribute the proposed $5 billion fund.

Poles and others in Eastern Europe repeatedly have expressed concern
about how the money 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, property
compensation and a plan to ensure further education on the evils of the
Holocaust.

Germany has proposed earmarking $3.8 billion for direct compensation of
forced and slave laborers, and using the rest to compensate Jews who
lost property in Germany and on the Holocaust education fund.

In December, Germany pledged to set up the fund, the costs of which will
be split by government and industry, to compensate hundreds of thousands
of people, mostly from Eastern Europe, made to work to support the Nazi
war machine. In exchange for the fund, German companies will get legal
protection from U.S. class-action lawsuits. (AP Online, March 1, 2000)


HOST MARRIOTT: Special Litigation Committee Asks for 6 Months
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of partners in Courtyard by Marriott II Limited Partnership
filed a lawsuit, Whitey Ford, et al. v. Host Marriott Corporation, et
al., Case No. 96-CI-08327, on June 7, 1996, in the 285th Judicial
District Court of Bexar County, Texas against the Company and others
alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, tortious interference, violation of the Texas Free
Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983 and conspiracy in connection with
the formation, operation and management of CBM II and its hotels. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.

On January 29, 1998, two other limited partners, A.R. Milkes and D.R.
Burklew, filed a petition in intervention seeking to convert the lawsuit
into a class action. The defendants have filed an answer, the class has
been certified, class counsel has been appointed, and discovery is
underway.

On March 11, 1999, Palm Investors, L.L.C., the assignee of a number of
limited partnership units acquired through various tender offers, filed
a plea in intervention to bring additional claims relating to the 1993
split of Marriott Corporation and to the 1995 refinancing of CBM II's
indebtedness. The original plaintiffs subsequently filed a second
amended complaint on March 19, 1999, and in a third amended complaint,
filed May 24, 1999, asserted as derivative claims, some of the claims
previously asserted as individual claims.

On March 25, 1999, Equity Resource, an assignee, through various of its
funds, of a number of limited partnership units, also filed a plea in
intervention similar to that which was filed by Palm Investors.

On August 17, 1999, the general partner of CBM II appointed an
independent special litigation committee (the "SLC"), comprised of the
Honorable William Webster and the Honorable Charles Renfrew, to
investigate the derivative claims described above and to recommend to
the general partner whether it is in the best interests of CBM II for
the derivative litigation to proceed. The general partner has agreed to
adopt the recommendation of the SLC. Under Delaware law, the
recommendation of a duly appointed independent litigation committee is
binding on the general partner and the limited partners. On August 30,
1999, the court held a hearing to consider the defendant's motion to
stay these proceedings until the committee makes its recommendation.
Similarly, the SLC has asked the court to postpone the trial for up to
six months so that the SLC can complete its investigation. The court has
not yet ruled on these requests.

After intervening in the CBM II class action, Palm Investors and Equity
Resource, together with Repp Properties, joined in a complaint filed in
April 1999, Equity Resource Fund X et al. v. CBM One Corporation et al.,
Case No. 99-CI-04765, in the 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar
County, Texas. This action asserted as derivative claims, on behalf of
CBM I and CBM II, the same kind of claims asserted individually in the
Ford and Milkes actions described above. After the appointment of the
SLC, this complaint was withdrawn by the plaintiffs in September 1999.


HOST MARRIOTT: Texas Multi-Partnership Suits on Hold
----------------------------------------------------
On March 16, 1998, limited partners in several limited partnerships
sponsored by Host Marriott or its subsidiaries filed a lawsuit, Robert
M. Haas, Sr. and Irwin Randolph Joint Tenants, et al. v. Marriott
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 98-CI-04092, in the 57th Judicial
District Court of Bexar County, Texas, alleging that the defendants
conspired to sell hotels to the partnerships for inflated prices and
that they charged the partnerships excessive management fees to operate
the partnerships' hotels. The plaintiffs further allege that the
defendants committed fraud, breached fiduciary duties and violated the
provisions of various contracts. A Marriott International subsidiary
manages each of the hotels involved and, as to some properties, Marriott
International, or one of its subsidiaries, is the ground lessor and
collects rent. The Company, Marriott International, several of their
subsidiaries, and J.W. Marriott, Jr. are among the various named
defendants. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages. Those
allegations concerning CBM II have been transferred to the CBM II
lawsuit described above. On March 18, 1999, two limited partners in CBM
I filed a class action petition in intervention seeking to treat CBM I
in a similar manner by converting that portion of the lawsuit into a
class action. On April 29, 1999, the court denied this petition and
refused to certify the class. No trial date has been set.


INMATES LITIGATION: Hillsborough Inmates Allege Denials of Medical Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two former Hillsborough County inmates filed a class action suit on
February 14 on behalf of themselves and others who were denied needed
prescriptions and medical care while in the county jail. Michael Skinner
and Jason Poloski filed suit in U.S. District Court in Concord alleging
that it was the practice and policy of the Hillsborough County House of
Correction to deny inmates needed medical care, medication and
treatment.

Poloski alleges that he was denied medical treatment for a severe case
of shingles and that, because treatment was withheld, he suffered
permanent scarring and other injuries.

The suit was filed against James M. O'Mara Jr., superintendent of
Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, the county itself,
PrimeCare Medical, which contracted with the county to provide medical
care, and two correctional employees identified only as John/Jane Does
#1 and John/Jane Does #2.

Attorney John P. Kacavas of Wiggin and Nourie in Manchester, in filing
the suit, is asking the suit be made a class action suit. That could
possibly mean hundreds of plaintiffs, Kacavas said. The suit, he
explained, alleges that the county corrections department had a policy
and practice of not providing adequate medical care and treatment "as a
deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of these people."
Kacavas hopes that with the filing of the suit that "those people who
were in the Valley Street Jail who were reluctant to come forward and
reveal what happened to them will now come forward." He said no amount
of monetary damages has been specified because, at this point, it is
undetermined, although the suit asks for both compensatory and punitive
damages.

The plaintiffs have asked, however, that the jail be ordered to stop the
practice of denying needed medical care, medication and treatment.

                             Skinner's Suit

Skinner of Manchester, according to the suit, was arrested on March 11,
1997, by Manchester police for violating the non-contact terms of his
divorce. At the time of his arrest, Skinner suffered from post-traumatic
stress disorder and major depression for which he was taking
prescription medications Zoloft, Ativan and Ambien. After he was booked
at the Manchester Police Department, Skinner was brought to a holding
cell. Never having been arrested before, he experienced a panic attack
and crawled under the cell cot. That evening, he was transported to the
Hillsborough County Department of Corrections -- the Valley Street
Jail-- where "he was accosted by several as yet unnamed corrections
officers (COs). As they shackled his arms behind his back, one of the
COs drove Mr. Skinner to his knees." In an acute state of panic/anxiety,
according to the suit, Skinner resisted and cried out, "No." At that
point another CO grabbed his head, smashed it to the cement floor and
knelt to the left side of his head with the full force of his body
weight, the suit alleges.

Despite numerous requests, he received no medical treatment at the jail
following "this physical beating," according to the suit. After his
release the following day, he went to Catholic Medical Center where he
was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome and cervical strain. While
he was at the jail, he also repeatedly requested his prescribed
medication for anxiety and for sleep, the suit alleges. When he was
finally permitted to speak with an as-yet-unnamed nurse he was told,
"They don't give this stuff out in here."

Nearly two years later, on March 8, 1999, Skinner was again arrested by
Manchester police for violating a court order related to his divorce. He
served eight days of a 30-day sentence. The suit alleges that during
that time, he made repeated requests to COs for his prescription
medications only to be told that a nurse would see him soon. When he was
finally permitted to speak with a nurse he was told, "You won't get
these in here; these are addictive."

Skinner was arrested a third time on June 15, 1999, again for violating
the terms of a restraining order. He served 10 days in jail. Again he
advised the booking officer at the jail that he suffered from PTSD and
major depression and needed the three prescribed medications. Twice,
Skinner's physician spoke with a corrections official at the jail in
order to apprise them of Skinner's diagnosis and need for prescription
medications. Despite this and Skinner's repeated requests, he was
completely denied the needed medications, the suit alleges.

                             Poloski's Suit

Poloski was arrested on May 27, 1999, and held at the Valley Street Jail
as a detainee. Shortly after his confinement began, he noticed a painful
and itchy rash extending laterally from the left side of his torso to
his left shoulder blade, according to the suit. Poloski requested an
evaluation at the next available medical call. About 12 hours later, a
nurse observed his condition and immediately quarantined him. Poloski
alleges that for two full days he was denied necessary medical care
resulting in the rash spreading uncontrollably. "Mr. Poloski's condition
became so painful it was difficult for him to breathe," the suit
alleges. "After literally screaming in pain, Mr. Poloski was visited by
an as yet unnamed nurse who informed him that he had a very bad case of
shingles, and that he would need to go to the hospital immediately."
About 30 minutes later, the nurse returned to tell him that the doctor
declined to authorize a hospital visit. "Instead, without the benefit of
a physical examination, the doctor prescribed medication to ameliorate
the pain but nothing to treat the underlying cause. Consequently, Mr.
Poloski's pain intensified," according to the suit. Poloski said he was
first visited by a doctor three or four days later -- about a week after
the onset of shingles. Upon his release from jail on June 29, 1999,
Poloski sought treatment at Matthew Thornton Healthcare, where he was
told that the initial denial and ensuing delay in treatment had made his
condition worse. (The Union Leader, February 15, 2000)


LANGENBERG HAT: Former Employees Sue Shut Down Maker over Sale Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit was filed March 1 on behalf of the more than 100
employees and retirees of the Langenberg Hat Co. Until Langenberg was
shut down by the courts in January, it was believed to be the oldest hat
manufacturer in operation in the country. It was founded in 1860 and
once operated in St. Louis. Most recently, it had four sites, all in
Missouri: two in New Haven and one each in Owensville and St. Elizabeth.

The suit, filed in federal court in Jefferson City, seeks $ 1.8 million
that the employees say they were promised when the company changed
ownership last year. The company was sold to Connie "Chip" Armstrong
Jr., a Texan who was seen as a "white knight" coming to rescue the
financially ailing manufacturer. Only recently did it become public
knowledge that Armstrong was a felon who was free on bail while
appealing a conviction.

Armstrong had been convicted in 1997 in California on 21 felony counts.
He swindled big companies, including Federal Express, out of more than $
62 million. While free on appeal, he wasn't supposed to take any job
where he would be near anyone else's money.

The suit accuses Armstrong and Eric Park, the man who was president of
the hat company when it was sold to Armstrong, of failing to protect the
employees' interest in the deal. Armstrong was supposed to pay about $
350,000 in cash to an employees' trust when the deal closed and follow
that up with an equal payment in each of the next four years for a total
of about $ 1.8 million. But those payments apparently were not being
made, at least not in full. The trust fund is believed to contain only
about $ 80,000, according to the suit.

Park, a stockbroker in Washington, Mo., was supposed to make sure there
was collateral to back up Armstrong's promise to pay, the suit says. But
the collateral turned out to be of far less value than originally
thought. Park said that he counted on the St. Louis law firm that he
hired to check out Armstrong and his financing plan. "They were the
biggest, baddest law firm I could find," he said in reference to
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale. A phone call to one of the lawyers involved
in the case was not returned.

The suit alleges that Armstrong had a conflict of interest in the deal.
As the buyer, he was supposed to post collateral. But when he took over
the company, he also became the trustee of the employees' trust fund.
When he wore that hat, he was supposed to be making sure that enough
collateral had been posted.

The suit was filed by the Jefferson City law firm of Cook, Vetter,
Doerhoff and Landwehr.

It could not be determined what impact, if any, the suit would have on
plans to liquidate the company. Area banks have foreclosed for
non-payment of loans. The Bank of Washington (Mo.) is owed the most: $
1.6 million.

March 1 evening was the deadline for bids on all four plants' equipment
and inventory. The buildings are slated to be sold, probably at
courthouse auctions, in the coming two weeks.

At least one party is hoping that the suit will delay the breakup of the
company. The Northern Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas is
interested in buying the hat company.

A member of the tribe's council, John Lightning Spirit Campbell of
Warrenton, has worked on the hat company's boilers and other equipment
for 15 years. He's convinced that the company can be turned around.

Campbell said that if the company were owned by a minority it could
better attract government contracts. The Indian reservations would also
be a good market for the Western hats that Langenberg is famous for, he
said.

But Campbell said the 9,000-member tribe needs more time to find
financing. He warned that once the equipment is sold, it will be
impossible to put the company back together again. (St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, March 2, 2000)


MICROSOFT CORP: May Seek Reopening of Workers' Permatemps Case over Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a status report Microsoft submitted to U.S. District Judge John
Coughenour in Seattle, company attorneys say they may ask the judge to
reconsider the class status of Vizcaino vs. Microsoft, which was
originally certified as a class action in 1993. According to the Los
Angeles Times, March 1, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice denied
the software giant's petition to review the case.

In early January, the Supreme Court upheld a federal appellate court's
ruling that full-time employees Microsoft paid through temporary
employment agencies -- known as permatemps -- should have been allowed
to buy discounted Microsoft stock. The ruling, according to Los Angeles
Times, could cost Microsoft at least $ 20 million because roughly 10,000
permatemps could be eligible for the discounted stock program.

Attorneys representing Microsoft's temporary work force say the company
is now delaying rather than complying with the federal ruling that
requires it to pay millions of dollars to thousands of employees denied
the right to buy discounted company shares through the company's
employee stock purchase plan, Los Angeles Times reports.

"Microsoft's response to losing in the U.S. Supreme Court is to ask the
District Court to throw out the class certification and start all over
with this litigation," Los Angeles Times quotes plaintiff attorney
Stephen Strong. Microsoft, the report says, has indicated that it is not
seeking to relitigate or delay the case. In earlier appeals, Microsoft
has argued that the court had allowed too large a pool of former workers
to be considered for compensation.


OAK TECHNOLOGY: Preparing for Trial on July 5, 2000
---------------------------------------------------
Oak Technology, Inc., and various of its current and former officers and
Directors are parties to several class action lawsuits filed on behalf
of all persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock
(excluding the defendants and parties related to them) for the period
July 27, 1995 through May 22, 1996.

The first, a state court proceeding designated IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. CV758510 pending in Santa Clara
County Superior Court in Santa Clara, California, consolidates five
class actions. This lawsuit originally named as defendants several of
the Company's venture capital fund investors, two of its investment
bankers and two securities analysts. The plaintiffs alleged violations
of California securities laws and statutory deceit provisions as well as
breaches of fiduciary duty and abuse of control. After several rounds of
demurrers, the only remaining claim is the California Corporations Code
Sections 25400/25500 cause of action against the Company, four officers
and the Company's investment bankers and securities analysts.

On July 16, 1998, the state court provisionally certified a national
class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock during the class
period. The class was provisionally certified with the order held in
abeyance pending resolution of the question of whether a nationwide
class may bring a California Corporations Code Sections 25400/25500
claim. This issue was resolved in favor of allowing such nationwide
class actions by the California Supreme Court, Case No. 5058723, on
January 4, 1999, in the DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SECURITIES LITIGATION appeal
by the California Supreme Court. Discovery has commenced in this action.
The defendants and certain third parties have produced documents and a
number of depositions have been taken, including the depositions of
those officers of the Company who were officers during the class period.
This action is set for trial on July 5, 2000. Based on its current
information, the Company believes this suit to be without merit and will
defend its position vigorously.


PERITUS SOFTWARE: MA Ct OKs Settlement of Securites Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Peritus Software Services, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: PTUS), a provider
of solutions for software maintenance, announced that it received final
approval on Monday, February 28 from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts of the settlement of the previously filed
class action securities litigation brought against the Company and
certain of its past or present officers and directors covering the class
period of October 22, 1997 through and including October 26, 1998. The
settlement, which was funded entirely by the Company's directors and
officers liability insurer, will become final at the expiration of the
appeal period.


PHILJAS: Japanese Executives Indicted for Hillside Collapse Near Manila
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Japanese manager and five other company executives were indicted on
March 1 for the collapse of a hillside housing development in heavy
rains last year that killed 58 people, officials said, an AP Online
report says, March 1, 2000.
The rains triggered a landslide that toppled the Cherry Hills
subdivision in Antipolo, east of Manila, on Aug. 3, destroying 378
houses. Relatives of the victims filed a class action suit with the
Justice Department seeking a total of $4.1 million in damages from
Philjas, the Philippine-Japanese venture that built Cherry Hills.

Among those charged in an Antipolo court with ''reckless imprudence''
resulting in multiple deaths were Philjas general manager Hiroshi Ogawa
and company president Tirso Santillan. If convicted, they could be
sentenced to up to four years in prison. Investigators have said the
tragedy could have been prevented if Philjas had acted immediately after
learning that the ground was starting to shift a few days before the
landslide.

Justice Department prosecutors said Philjas failed to conduct required
engineering, structural and geological assessments before building
Cherry Hills. Santillan has said his company did not conduct soil
stability tests because they were not required for low-cost housing.
Company officials said days of heavy rains caused the collapse of Cherry
Hills.

Eight Philippine officials were previously indicted on charges of
allowing the construction of the housing project without required
permits, AP Online says.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Glass Products Price Fixing Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in a number of
antitrust lawsuits filed in federal and state courts by various
plaintiffs, the Company relates in its latest annual report. These suits
allege PPG was involved with competitors in fixing prices and allocating
markets for certain glass products. PPG counts twenty-nine cases filed
in federal courts, all of which have been consolidated in a single
federal district court (W.D. Pa.) for pretrial proceedings under the
multidistrict litigation rules. Eleven cases were filed in state courts
in California, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Kansas; the Wisconsin case was
removed to federal court and then consolidated under multidistrict
litigation. PPG's co-defendants in these actions are Pilkington plc;
Libbey-Owens Ford Co., Inc.; AFG Industries; Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.;
Guardian Industries Corp.; and Ford Motor Company. In the federal
multidistrict litigation, the other defendants named above, except for
the Ford Motor Company, have entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs, which are pending court approval. These antitrust lawsuits
all purport to be class actions. In the federal multidistrict
litigation, the court has ruled that the case may proceed as a class
action. The plaintiffs in these cases are seeking economic and treble
damages and injunctive relief. PPG believes it has meritorious defenses
in these lawsuits.


RAINFOREST CAFE: Receives Amended Complaint Re Consideration of Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainforest Cafe, Inc., "A Wild Place to Shop and Eat"(R), (Nasdaq:RAIN),
announced that the plaintiffs in the two purported class action lawsuits
filed on December 23, 1999 and January 13, 2000, have amended their
original complaints to allege, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration
of the merger with Landry's Seafood Restaurants. The Company denies
these allegations and intends to vigorously defend themselves in their
actions.

Rainforest Cafe, Inc. develops, owns, and operates combination
restaurant/retail facilities offering a stimulating and entertaining
rain forest theme, providing visitors with "A Wild Place to Shop and
Eat(R)." There are currently 38 Rainforest Cafe(R) units open including
28 domestic locations and 10 international units. Rainforest Cafe, Inc.
common shares are traded on the NASDAQ national Market under the symbol
RAIN.

This news release (as well as information included in oral statements or
other written statements made or to be made by the Company) may contain
forward-looking statements, such as statements relating to future
expansion, that involve risks and uncertainties relating to future
events. Actual events or the Company's result may differ materially from
the result discussed in the forward-looking statements. The Company does
not expect to update forward-looking statements continually as
conditions change. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not
limited to, those relating to the merger with Landry's Seafood
Restaurants, Inc., the results of shareholder litigation, competition,
fluctuations and changes in consumer preferences and attitudes,
intellectual property protection, development and construction
activities. Investors are referred to the full discussion of risks and
uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements contained in
the Company's Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 1, 2000.

Contact: Rainforest Cafe, Inc., Hopkins, MN Connie Carrino Director of
Corporate Communications 612-945-5400 http://www.rainforestcafe.com


RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit
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. between
July 15, 1999 through February 17, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Ravisent and certain of its officers
violated the federal securities law by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding Ravisent's revenue recognition policy, revenues
and income. As a result, the price of Ravisent's common stock was
inflated during the Class Period.

For concerns regarding this lawsuit, please contact Jonathan M.
Plasse, Esq. or Emily C. Komlossy, Esq. of GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF &
SUCHAROW LLP at 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017-5563, by
telephone at 212-907-0700 or at plassej@glrs.com or komlose@glrs.com
via e-mail.


SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Berger & Montague Files Investors' Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following notice is issued by the law firm of Berger & Montague,
P.C. on behalf of its clients, who on February 29, 2000, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BID) during the period of February 11,
1997 through January 28, 2000 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Commission. 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 in the absence of an alleged price
fixing arrangement with Christie's International PLC. The complaint also
asserts that defendants' false and misleading statements artificially
inflated the price of the Company's stock during the Class Period.

If you have any questions about the action, please contact: Sherrie R.
Savett at 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Telephone:
215-875-3000 Fax: 215-875-4604 or 888-891-2289. You can e-mail the firm
at InvestorProtect@bm.net with your name, mailing address and telephone
number. The firm's website is at http://home.bm.net


TD WATERHOUSE: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Plaintiff alleges claims for violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The plaintiff further alleges
that Waterhouse and its President, John H. Chapel 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 queries on the above-mentioned lawsuit, you may get in touch
with James Bonner of Shalov Stone & Bonner at 276 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 704, New York, NY 1000 at 212-686-8004 or via e-mail at
Jim@lawssb.com or visit website at http://www.lawssb.com


TENAFLY BOARD: Residents Sue over School Bond Referendum on Snowy Day
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of residents say the $ 17.9 million school bond referendum Jan.
25 was a real snow job, and they have filed a lawsuit saying the
election should have been postponed because of bad weather. More than
two dozen residents have joined in the class-action lawsuit claiming
they were disenfranchised after 5 inches of snow blanketed the town and
the Tenafly Board of Education canceled classes for the children , but
kept the schools open to conduct the balloting. Many elderly residents
have complained they were snowed in that day and couldn't get to the
polls. They suspect that the decision to hold the referendum was a
strategic move designed to keep them from voting. The school expansion
plan was approved, with 41 percent of voters participating.

The suit alleges that disabled residents were prevented from voting, and
it asks Superior Court Judge Sybil R. Moses to set aside the result. The
suit does not challenge the result; it simply claims the election was
not fair. "We file this petition not as partisans one way or the other
as to the board's referendum,"the suit says."We file this petition to
protect and defend the integrity of all Tenafly residents right to vote,
be that young or old or even disabled."

Carl Zipperle, a resident who waged a campaign to defeat the bond
proposal, helped round up petitioners for the lawsuit. He believes Moses
will throw out the results once the evidence is heard. "The Tenafly
school board seems to think it is OK to hold the vote in the middle of a
severe winter storm, 10 years after the adoption of the Americans With
Disabilities Act," Zipperle said."I'd describe that decision as rather
medieval."

The lawsuit asserts that in the past, cancellation of classes has meant
that the building was closed. So it was plausible that some residents
would have heard the announcement of the school closing on the radio and
presumed that the referendum was canceled as well, the lawsuit states.
Instead, the Board of Education met after classes were canceled and
decided to go ahead with the referendum, against the advice of the
Bergen County Board of Elections.

The county advised the school board that conducting the election would
be difficult because the Superior Court had been closed as a result of
the weather. That court hears all challenges to a voter's eligibility on
the day of the balloting.

The plaintiffs attorney, Robert Quinn, is expected to argue that because
the court was closed, voters who might have needed emergency ballots
would not have been able to obtain them.

Copies of the lawsuit arrived at the Tenafly Board of Education office
on Tuesday, February 29. Board President Roberta "Bobbie" Frankfort
released a statement defending the decision to hold the referendum.

"The Board of Education believes that the voters have spoken," Frankfort
said."We believe that the weather was not a significant factor in the
election result, as this was one of the highest voter turnouts in
several years for any school district election in Tenafly." The 1 NEW3
referendum was split into two questions. The first asked voters whether
to spend $ 13.8 million for new construction and technology. The
expenditure was approved 1,492 to 1,021.

The second question asked voters whether they would approve a $ 4.1
million expenditure for repairs to school buildings, including new roofs
at Stillman and Maugham elementary schools. It was approved 1,542 to
913.

Since then, the Tenafly Board of Education has moved forward with its
plan to build more classroom space at each of its four elementary
schools. Moses has ruled that those plans can proceed while the case is
pending. A Superior Court hearing is set for March 24. (The Record
(Bergen County, NJ), March 1, 2000)


TWA: Workers Say Funds Not Transferred in Timely Manner; Ct OKs Class
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has granted class action status to a suit filed by TWA
workers over their 401(k) savings plan. U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple
ruled that the suit met the criteria for a class action, finding that
questions common to members of the class predominated over questions
affecting only individual members.

The suit, filed in Kansas City federal court last year by members of the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, asserted
that TWA and Chase Manhattan Bank, the plan's administrator, breached
their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs
alleged that TWA and Chase Manhattan failed to transfer funds in a
timely manner out of a pooled account that was performing poorly.

"Basically, we're saying that our people lost money because the plan
administrators weren't able to process large volumes of fund transfer
requests during a time of market volatility," said lawyer Ronald Holt of
Watkins Boulware Lucas Miner Murphy & Taylor, which represents the TWA
workers.

The employees claim that it took the administrators 30 days to make the
transfers, during which time the share price of the affected Vista Fund
fell from $11.60 to $9.20, for a loss of $2.7 million.

Some 860 out of 1,800 plan participants made transfer requests. To cover
the $2.7 million shortfall, the plaintiffs claim the administrators drew
on the funds of the plan participants who elected to stay in the Vista
Fund. Those participants are members of the class certified by Whipple.
The case now proceeds to the discovery phase. (The Kansas City Star,
February 29, 2000)


VESTRON: $2.8 Mil Settlement Ends Suit over Film Revenue Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A long-running class-action suit against Vestron has finally ended with
a settlement of $ 2.8 million. Filed in 1994, the suit alleged that
Vestron improperly allocated revenues among the films in its foreign
package distribution deals. The suit sought to rectify huge disparities
in the revenues assigned to the various films in the package.

The long-defunct Vestron was at one time the largest distributor of
independent films. Its catalog was bought by Live and then by Artisan.

The suit represented approximately 500 filmmakers, including Ken Burns,
who was one of the named plaintiffs. Lead counsel for the class was
Thomas A. Cohen of San Francisco.


VISX, INC: Steven E. Cauley Files Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. announced that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of VISX Inc. (Nasdaq:
VISX) common stock during the period between March 1, 1999 and Feb. 22,
2000 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges VISX 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 the
steady and increasing revenues the installed base of VISX's Excimer
Laser systems would provide to VISX, the strong procedure and equipment
royalties VISX was earning, the limited impact of competition which
would allow VISX to maintain its $250 per procedure licensing fee in the
United States which would lead to consistent revenue growth, and VISX's
continued market share domination which would result in 2000 EPS of
$1.70-1.80, artificially inflated the price of VISX stock to a Class
Period high of $103-7/8 from just $30-1/4 per share (split adjusted) at
the outset of the Class Period. This upsurge in VISX's stock enabled
VISX insiders to sell 1.4 million shares of their VISX stock for $97
million in proceeds.

On Dec. 10, 1999, VISX received an adverse ruling from the International
Trade Commission that competitor Nidek had not infringed on VISX's
patents, and its stock retreated to the $58-$60 range. This cast doubt
on VISX's competitive position and the ability to maintain its prices.
However, VISX continued to represent that the $250 per procedure fee was
in tact. Then, on Jan. 19, 2000, VISX revealed a drop in 4thQ 99
revenues versus the 3rdQ 99 and exposed the problems VISX was having
growing its business. On these disclosures, VISX's stock fell by 29% in
one day to $32-1/4. However, it was not until Feb. 22, 2000, that VISX
admitted it would reduce its per procedure fee to $100. This
announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $16 on huge
volume on Feb. 23, 2000.

If you have any questions regarding this lawsuit or how you may be able
to recover for the losses you have incurred, please E-mail or call: LAW
OFFICES OF STEVEN E. CAULEY, P.A., 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 201, Little
Rock, AR 72212,
E-mail: CauleyPA@aol.com or toll free at 1-888-551-9944


VISX, INC.: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of VISX,
Inc. between March 1, 1999 and February 22, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges VISX and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements about the
steady and increasing revenues the installed base of VISX's Excimer
Laser systems would provide to VISX, the strong procedure and
equipment royalties VISX was earning, the limited impact of
competition which would allow VISX to maintain its $250 per
procedure licensing fee in the United States which would lead to
consistent revenue growth, and VISX's continued market share
domination which would result in 2000 EPS of $1.70-1.80,
artificially inflated the price of VISX stock to a Class Period high
of $103-7/8 from just $30-1/4 per share at the outset of the Class
Period. This upsurge in VISX's stock enabled VISX insiders to sell
1.4 million shares of their VISX stock for $97 million in proceeds.
On Dec. 10, 1999, VISX received an adverse ruling from the
International Trade Commission that competitor Nidek had not
infringed on VISX's patents, and its stock retreated to the $58-$60
range. This cast doubt on VISX's competitive position and the
ability to maintain its prices. However, VISX continued to represent
that the $250 per procedure fee was in tact. Then, on Jan. 19, 2000,
VISX revealed a drop in 4thQ 99 revenues versus the 3rdQ 99 and
exposed the problems VISX was having growing its business. On these
disclosures, VISX's admitted it would reduce its per procedure fee
to $100. This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low
as $16 on Feb. 23, 2000.

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


VISX, INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class
of purchasers of VISX Incorporated common stock between March 1,
1999 and February 22, 2000.

The complaint charges that VISX and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10-b(5). The action arises from damages incurred by the Class
as a result of a scheme and common course of conduct by defendants
which operated as a fraud and deceit on the Class during the Class
Period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain officers of
VISX made false and misleading statements to the public about the
Company's business prospects of its Excimer Laser Systems, which
caused the market price of VISX stock to trade at artificially high
levels during the Class Period. Additionally, the complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, insiders were able to sell more than
$95 million of their personal holdings of VISX.

For more information on this action, please contact Ronald T. Theda,
Esq. of Weiss & Yourman, telephone at 800-437-7918 or e-mail at
wyinfo@wyca.com


                               *********


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  * * *