CAR_Public/000306.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Monday, March 6, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 45

                            Headlines

AGRIBIOTECH, INC.: Bankruptcy Has Not Stayed D&O Claims
ALEXEI YASHIN: Ottawa Court Date for Fans Set for April
ALLIED PRODUCTS: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
AMTRAK: Sprenger & Lang Announces Race Discrimination Suit Settled
AURORA FOODS: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Complaint in California

AURORA FOODS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Lawsuit in California
AURORA FOODS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in California
BOEING CO: Sued for Allegedly Discriminating Female Workers
CENTURY BUSINESS: Shepherd & Geller Files Securities Complaint in Ohio
COASTAL CORP.: Employees Gain No Ground in Class Certification

CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Believes Securities Suits are Meritless
CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Suit in NJ
CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Lawsuit in NJ
DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 18-Volt Battery Packs for Repair

DOUBLECLICK: Retracks Plan on Tracking Internet Users
FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in MA
FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in MA
HUGHES AIRCRAFT: Wins Appeal; Defined Benefit Plan No Rights to Assets
LEARN2.COM, INC.: 21 Months and No Progress in Securities Case

MASTEC: Proposed Settlement Reached for Decade-Old Shareholder Lawsuit
PFIZER, INC.: 57,328 Asbestos & 68 Talc Claims Pend at Year-End
PFIZER, INC.: Bulk of MTG's 700 Penile Prosthetic Cases Resolved
PFIZER, INC.: Houston Rid Suit Withdrawn; 3 Rid Cases Pending
PFIZER, INC.: One Retail Pharmacy Issue Remanded & FDA Knocks

PFIZER, INC.: Our Antiarthritic Didn't Kill Your Dogs!
PFIZER, INC.: Pfizer Brazil Escapes $88M Moral Damages Judgment
PFIZER, INC.: Plax Customer Class Certification Sub Judice
PFIZER, INC.: Says Desitin Baby Powder Labeling Case is Nonsense
PINOCHET: Chileans and 60 Lawsuits Await His Arrival

SAIPAN SWEATSHOP: 6 U.S. Retailers Added to Landmark Lawsuit
SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Announces '99 Results under Cloud of Antitrust
SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in NY
TELEPHONE COMPANIES: FCC, FTC Clamp Down on Phone Ads
TIM HORTONS: Canadian TDL Group's Coffeeshop Chain Recalls Coffeemakers

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Liggett Turns against RJ Reynolds on Antitrust
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Would Accept Sales Drop, Even Retreat
TRANS UNION: FTC Orders Halt to Peddling Borrowers' Financial Data
VISX, INC: Barrack, Rodos Commences Securities Lawsuit in California
VISX, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Lawsuit in California

VISX, INC: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in California

                             *********

AGRIBIOTECH, INC.: Bankruptcy Has Not Stayed D&O Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Between January 14, 1999 and March 19, 1999, a number of securities
class action complaints were filed against AgriBioTech, Inc., and
certain of its former directors and current and former officers in
federal courts in New Mexico, New York and Nevada. All cases have been
transferred to the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada and consolidated into one action. On July 6, 1999, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent a
class of purchasers of ABT common stock from September 24, 1997 through
February 16, 1999. The complaint alleges, among other things, that ABT's
financial statements, including the accounting treatment for
acquisitions completed in 1997 and 1998, and certain statements made by
ABT concerning its efforts to find a strategic equity investor in late
1998 and early 1999 and other topics were false and misleading and
caused an artificial rise in ABT's common stock price in violation of
federal securities law. On August 18, 1999, ABT filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs have filed a brief in response to
ABT's motion and ABT has responded to that brief. ABT believes it has
meritorious defenses to this action and intends to defend itself
vigorously. However, due to the risks of litigation, a prediction of the
final outcome of these proceedings cannot be made with certainty, and an
unfavorable result in this action could have a material adverse impact.

On January 25, 2000, the Company filed a petition seeking relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The proceedings against ABT have been
stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
The proceedings against the directors and officers are not stayed.


ALEXEI YASHIN: Ottawa Court Date for Fans Set for April
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Arthur Cogan said he has "a positive feeling" Yashin will come to
the capital to testify in an examination for discovery some time in
April, according to the Ottawa Sun, March 3. Yashin has hockey
commitments into April, but Cogan is hoping he'll show up for the
discovery after he hangs up his skates. The star has been working out
with a Swiss team. Cogan is representing Ottawa businessman Len
Potechin, who's filed a $27.5-million class-action lawsuit against the
AWOL star and his agent Mark Gandler.

Potechin's lawsuit alleges a breach of contract because fans bought
season tickets believing they'd see the Russian star skating on Kanata
ice this year. Instead, Yashin refused and headed for Switzerland over a
contract dispute.

Cogan said negotiations between himself and Fred Seller, Yashin's
lawyer, as to the details of the examination are ongoing. During the
examination he'll be asked to give sworn testimony in defence of
Potechin's suit.

Potechin has also alleged Yashin and Gandler tried to use the team's
fans as pawns forcing Sens management to the negotiating table. Gandler
would also be at the discovery in April, Cogan said, adding he's been
informed Seller is again trying to have the case dismissed by filing a
motion for summary judgment.

That means the two sides will likely be back in an Ottawa court later
this month arguing whether the case should proceed, the Ottawa Sun says.



ALLIED PRODUCTS: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In May 1999 and June 1999, ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION was served with
two complaints purporting to be class action lawsuits on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company 's common stock between February
6, 1997 and March 11, 1999. The complaints, which were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
appear to be virtually identical. They allege various violations of the
federal securities laws, including misrepresentation or failure to
disclose material information about the Company's results of operations,
financial condition, weakness in its financial internal controls,
accounting for long-term construction contracts and employee stock
option compensation expense. In August 1999, the District Court ordered
that the two cases be consolidated for all purposes. A Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed on October 12, 1999. The claims in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint appear to be virtually identical to the
claims in the prior complaints filed in May 1999 and June 1999. The
Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 13, 1999.


AMTRAK: Sprenger & Lang Announces Race Discrimination Suit Settled
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak has agreed to settle a race discrimination class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of African American employees and job applicants for
positions represented by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
in the Engineering Department of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. The
settlement, in the form of a Consent Decree, provides for a fund of $16
million to be distributed among the class and counsel and requires
Amtrak to implement wide-ranging changes in its personnel policies.
Amtrak agreed to alter policies affecting hiring; certification,
training and advancement; discipline; internal enforcement of equal
employment policies; and data collection and retention.

Amtrak and plaintiffs voluntarily entered into mediation in an effort to
address and settle the concerns of the class. The suit, originally filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in May 1998 by
the BMWE and African-American employees and applicants and pending
before Judge Emmett Sullivan, alleges a pattern or practice of
discrimination in Amtrak's hiring, discipline and training of African
American employees, as well as toleration of a racially hostile work
environment. Under the terms of the settlement, Amtrak admits to no
wrongdoing.

George Warrington, President & CEO of Amtrak, stated, "Amtrak is
committed to a cultural change at the company that will not only make
Amtrak a better place in which to work but also will enable us to be
more responsive to the diverse marketplace we serve. We have already
taken a number of important steps in transforming the company's culture.
In agreeing to this settlement, we want our African American employees
and the BMWE to know that Amtrak values diversity. It is the right thing
to do and makes good business sense."

In his comments, Jed Dodd, General Chairman of the Pennsylvania
Federation of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, echoed
many of these sentiments. He stated, "the struggle for equal opportunity
for all members is a central mission of our Union and we are pleased
that this settlement will make the working environment a better place
for all railroad maintenance and construction workers. We are proud of
our African American members. We are also grateful that Amtrak
management worked hard with us to fashion a just resolution."

Michael Lieder of Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, lead counsel for plaintiffs,
commended Amtrak's receptiveness toward reform and negotiation over
litigation. He added, "The policy changes mandated by the Consent Decree
are at least as important as the money. The terms are designed to assure
fairness for all employees, both black and white, by reducing the
opportunity for biased managerial decision-making."

Counsel for both parties will be involved in monitoring compliance with
the Decree over a four-year period if Judge Sullivan ultimately approves
it. The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban
Affairs, Andrew Rainer of the Boston law firm of Shapiro, Haber & Urmy,
and the Lawyers' Committee of the Boston Bar Association also served as
counsel for plaintiffs in the case.

Because plaintiffs seek to represent a class, the parties must still
seek approval by the Court of their proposed settlement, which process
will lead to a fairness hearing and take several months. The same Court,
however, recently gave its final approval to the settlement of a related
case against Amtrak for alleged discrimination against its African
American managers.

This was the first of three race discrimination class action cases filed
against Amtrak. The second, filed in September 1998, was the
recently-settled case of the managers. The third suit, involving all
other African-American employees of Amtrak, was filed on November 9,
1999 and is still pending.

The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
also served as class counsel for plaintiffs.

Contact: Sprenger & Lang, PLLC For Plaintiff Class: Maia Caplan or
Michael Lieder, Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, 202-265-8010 e-mail:
mcaplan@sprengerlang.com or Avis Buchanan, Washington Lawyers'
Committee, 202-319-1000 or Andrew Rainer Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP,
617-439-3939 or For Amtrak: Cliff Black, 202-906-3855


AURORA FOODS: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP announces the filing of a class action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of purchasers of Aurora Foods, Inc. (NYSE: AOR) common stock
between April 28, 1999, and February 17, 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 that were false,
misleading and deceptive because they failed to conform to 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 was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

Contact: James Jay Seirmarco, of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, 415-538-3725,
jseirmarco@a-g-s.com or Patricia Toher, of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri,
800-889-3701, ptoher@a-g-s.com


AURORA FOODS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all those who purchased
the common stock of Aurora during the period between April 28, 1999
and February 18, 2000, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Aurora and its executives engaged in
fraudulent accounting practices including failing to properly expense
trade promotion costs. As a result of the improprieties, several of
the Company's high ranking executives, including its Chairman and
Chief Executive Ian Wilson, resigned and Aurora's Board formed a
committee to investigate the Company's accounting practices and
financial reporting.

On February 18, 2000, the Company stunned the market when it
announced that in order to correct the improprieties in its financial
reporting, the Company expected to take a "non-cash charge" against
1999 earnings that would result in a "material reduction" and
possibly a loss for the full year 1999. The market reaction to the
news was swift; the price of Aurora's common stock tumbled 50%.

For enquiries on the above-mentioned lawsuit, please contact Andrew G.
Tolan, Esq. of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, by
telephone at 888/476-6529 or e-mail at agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit
website at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com


AURORA FOODS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Aurora Foods, Inc. (NYSE: AOR) from February 23, 1999 through
February 17, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Aurora Foods and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial condition. On February 17, 2000, Aurora Foods
admitted that its 1999 results had been false and that its top four
officers had resigned.

Contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Bala Cynwyd Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
Robert B. Weiser, Esq. 888/299-7706 (toll free) or 610/667-7706 e-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


BOEING CO: Sued for Allegedly Discriminating Female Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Co., the world's biggest airplane maker, is being sued for
allegedly denying as many as 30,000 female workers equal pay, promotions
and other workplace benefits, The Times Union (Albany, NY) reports,
March 2, 2000.

Twenty-eight former and current female workers from Boeing plants in
Washington, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri filed the suit against Boeing,
Boeing North American Inc. and McDonnell Douglas Corp. The suit, filed
Feb. 25 in federal court in Seattle, seeks class-action status on behalf
of an estimated 30,000 female workers nationwide and seeks potential
damages that could exceed $ 250 million, said plaintiffs lawyers Jerry
McNaul and Michael Helgren. Boeing is investigating the allegations,
said spokeswoman Amanda Landers.


CENTURY BUSINESS: Shepherd & Geller Files Securities Complaint in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Shepherd & Geller, LLC, court-appointed co-lead counsel
in a class action filed last September in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of individuals and
institutional investors that purchased Century Business Services, Inc.
(Nasdaq:CBIZ) common stock, announced that they will be filing an
amended complaint to include purchases of common stock between November
9, 1999 and January 28, 2000, inclusive. Shepherd & Geller, LLC is
working closely with The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A., in
prosecuting this case.

Contact: Shepherd & Geller, LLC, Boca Raton Jonathan M. Stein,
561/750-3000 Toll Free: 1-888-262-3131 E-mail:
jstein@classactioncounsel.com


COASTAL CORP.: Employees Gain No Ground in Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In October 1996, Coastal Corp., along with several subsidiaries, was
named as a defendant in a suit filed by several former and current
African American employees in the U.S. District Court, Southern District
of Texas. The Texas suit alleges racially discriminatory employment
policies and practices. Coastal vigorously denies these allegations and
has filed responsive pleadings. Plaintiffs' counsel are seeking to have
the Texas suit certified as a class action of all former and current
African American employees and initially claimed compensatory and
punitive damages of $400 million. In February 1999, in response to
Coastal's motion to deny class certification, plaintiffs' counsel
obtained permission from the Court to delete all claims for compensatory
and punitive damages and to seek equitable relief only.

In January 1998, the plaintiffs in the Texas suit amended their suit to
exclude ANR Pipeline employees from the potential class.

A new suit was then filed in state court in Wayne County, Michigan,
seeking to have the Michigan suit certified as a class action of African
American employees of ANR Pipeline and seeking unspecified damages as
well as attorneys and expert fees. ANR Pipeline has filed responsive
pleadings denying these allegations. In August 1999, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the Michigan suit certified as a class
action. Plaintiffs filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals an
application for leave to appeal the denial of the class certification.
On November 5, 1999, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied the
application for leave to appeal.


CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Believes Securities Suits are Meritless
-----------------------------------------------------------
CyberShop.com(R), Inc. (NASDAQ: CYSP), announced that it intends to
vigorously defend against the filed securities class action suits. "We
believe the claims are meritless, and we have retained Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, a leading national law firm with one of the preeminent
securities litigation defense practices to represent us in the actions,"
stated Jeff Tauber, Chairman and CEO of CyberShop. "More important,
although the lawsuits are an unfortunate distraction, we will continue
to focus our energies on our business and the many opportunities that we
are seeing in our new Internet incubator strategy."

Cybershop.com, Inc., describes itself as one of the first publicly
traded Internet incubators through Grove Street Ventures. It tries to
identify and develop attractive early stage Internet companies. Grove
Street will provide these companies management, marketing, financing
(including early stage seed capital), human resources, accounting
resources, use of its facilities and its extensive expertise in business
development. In return, Grove Street will receive substantial equity
positions. Grove Street Ventures also operates its online and direct
response company, Tools for Living. In order to reflect its new focus,
CyberShop.com, Inc anticipates changing its name and Nasdaq trading
symbol in the near future.


CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") gives notice that on
March 2, 2000, it filed a class action lawsuit against CyberShop.com,
Inc., and certain of its officers and directors, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers
of CyberShop common stock (NASDAQ: CYSP) from October 27, 1999, through
February 29, 2000, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, CyberShop issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning its business and
financial results, and included these false and misleading statements in
various press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Specifically, although CyberShop publicly announced that its
net sales had increased 458% for the quarter ended September 30, 1999
over the same quarter of the prior year, it concealed the fact that
sales for its flagship operation, www.cybershop.com, fell 28% as
compared to the same period of the prior year. Plaintiff further alleges
that these false statements caused the price of CyberShop common stock
to be artificially inflated, trading as high as $14.25 per share.
Plaintiff further alleges that, while defendants were in possession of
this material adverse information, they sold approximately $7.4 million
worth of their CyberShop holdings and CyberShop sold $6 million worth of
stock and warrants in a private placement. At the end of the Class
Period, the Company finally disclosed that sales for its flagship
operations were extremely poor and that the company would have to close
its two largest online stores and effectively exit the e-tailing
business. Following these announcements, the price of CyberShop common
stock closed at $3.9375 per share, reflecting a decline of more that 70%
from its Class Period high of $14.25 per share.

Contact: Robert S. Gans of Bernstein Litowitz at 800-380-8496 or
212-554-1400, or by E-mail: Robert@blbglaw.com.


CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on March 3,
2000 filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
CyberShop.com, Inc. (Nasdaq:CYSP) during the period between October 26,
1999 and February 24, 2000, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that CyberShop.com and its top executive officers
violated the federal securities laws by causing CyberShop.com to falsely
portray its financial condition to permit its founder to sell a
substantial amount of his personal CyberShop.com holdings at
artificially inflated prices. In February 2000, CyberShop.com 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.com'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.

Contact: Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. or Robert Smits Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 -- West
Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: 888/240-0775 or 202/408-4600
E-mail address: afriedman@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on March 2, 2000, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the stock of CyberShop.com Inc. (NASDAQ: CYSP) between
October 26, 1999, and February 24, 2000, inclusive, announces Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP.

The complaint charges CyberShop.com and certain of its officers and
directors with violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements concerning sales at the Company's e-tailing web sites. In
particular, the complaint alleges that defendants represented that
revenues at the Company's web sites for the third quarter of 1999 had
increased 458% when, in fact, sales at the web sites had decreased 28%.
Before the disclosure of the true facts, CyberShop.com insiders sold
more than $7 million of their personally-held CyberShop.com common stock
to the unsuspecting public.

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


DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 18-Volt Battery Packs for Repair
-----------------------------------------------------------
Washington, D.C. -- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), DEWALT Industrial Tool Co., of Baltimore, Md., is
recalling for repair about 755,000 DEWALT 18-volt battery packs (model
DW9095) for use with various battery-operated tools. The battery packs'
clips can come loose, causing the battery packs to fall. When working
with these tools, falling battery packs weighing about 2.2 pounds can
cause injury.

DEWALT has received 53 reports of battery packs falling from tools.
There have been five reports of injuries, including a battery pack
striking a consumer on the head.

The recalled DEWALT 18-volt battery packs are model number DW9095. This
model number is located on the name plate on the bottom of the battery.
These battery packs have date codes from 9719 to 9810 located on the top
of the battery pack. The battery packs are black with "DEWALT," and
"18V" in yellow on the sides of the packs. Major home centers and
hardware stores, as well as industrial distributors, sold battery packs
nationwide from May 1997 through June 1998 for between $70 and $85.

Battery packs with an "R" etched after the date code or with a red dot
on the name plate already have been repaired and are not included in
this recall.


DOUBLECLICK: Retracks Plan on Tracking Internet Users
-----------------------------------------------------
Under fire from the Federal Trade Commission and industry watchdogs,
DoubleClick, the Internet's largest advertising company, has dropped a
plan to find out the names and home addresses of the Internet users
whose online behavior it tracks, The San Francisco Chronicle, March 3
reports. DoubleClick's chief executive Kevin O'Connor said in a
statement that he made a mistake by planning to merge names with
anonymous user activity across Web sites in the absence of government
and industry privacy standards, according to The San Francisco
Chronicle. O'Connor added that New York's DoubleClick may go ahead with
matching names and Web user profiles after standards are created, which
he hoped that would happen within three to six months, The San Francisco
Chronicle reports.

The announcement comes after weeks of controversy about DoubleClick's
intentions. Internet privacy advocates charged that DoubleClick would
use the names and profiles to create exhaustive files on each consumer.
The company said it would use the data to deliver targeted advertising
to users via regular mail as well as e-mail and banner ads. Some
advocates say sensitive data such as health and financial records could
fall into the wrong hands and cause people to be discriminated against
by employers or insurers.

The FTC is investigating DoubleClick to determine whether its data
collection activities constitute unfair business practices. That probe
is still under way, an FTC spokesman said.

According to The San Francisco Chronicle, DoubleClick's problems have
compounded in recent days. Personal finance softwaremaker Intuit removed
DoubleClick ads from the Loans section of its Quicken.com Web site while
Intuit programmers worked to stop a glitch in the site that sent
consumers' financial data to DoubleClick. Giant portal AltaVista
instituted a policy that would limit the information DoubleClick could
collect about AltaVista users, and Web service Kozmo.com dropped
DoubleClick's ad service.

Last summer, DoubleClick acquired Abacus Direct, a direct marketing
company that owns an enormous database holding the names, home addresses
and purchasing habits of millions of American households. In late
January, USA Today reported that DoubleClick would use the Abacus
database to identify individual Web surfers by name. O'Connor said in
his statement that DoubleClick has not yet merged the Abacus database
with its profiles of surfers' online behavior.

TRUSTe, a San Francisco industry privacy group, and the American
Advertising Federation, an advertising industry trade group, lauded the
decision, saying DoubleClick's move showed the company's concern for
consumer privacy. "The market has sent DoubleClick and other companies
with a Web presence a strong and loud message -- and their business
practices are adjusting accordingly," said David Steer, a spokesman for
TRUSTe. The group is establishing an advisory commission that will
examine the issue and set guidelines for TRUSTe members.

Privacy watchdogs were predictably less impressed, but the Washington,
D.C., Electronic Privacy Information Center called the announcement "a
step in the right direction." The center sent a complaint to the FTC
February 10, alleging that DoubleClick was already combining Web data
with personally identifiable information. "We have reason to be
skeptical about this statement," said spokesman Andrew Shen, who added
that the center would watch DoubleClick carefully to make sure the
company sticks to its promise. "There needs to be a government
standard," Shen said. "If you rely on industry standards, they're not
going to get any farther than they have right now."

DoubleClick's stock closed at $83.44 on March 2, up $2.88, after the
announcement. Perry Boyle, an analyst for Thomas Weisel Partners, said
the stock should continue to recover from the losses it has suffered
from the controversy. On February 15, DoubleClick stock was worth
$111.44, and it has not approached that level since. Boyle said many
people have overreacted to practices that he believes are no more
invasive than those of most major Web companies. He also suggested that
consumers give up at least as much personal data by using credit cards
as they do while online. "To think that you should have more privacy
online than in the off-line world is unrealistic," Boyle said.

DoubleClick's information-gathering policies are also the subject of
several class-action lawsuits, and the attorney general of Michigan
Jennifer M. Granholm has said the state plans to sue DoubleClick to stop
it from collecting users' information without their knowledge or
permission, The San Francisco Chronicle reports. Granholm, according to
The San Francisco Chronicle, said DoubleClick's statement doesn't
address the placement of tracking software called "cookies" in the
personal computers of consumers who visit World Wide Web sites.


FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP announces that a securities class action
was filed on March 3, 2000 against Focus Enhancements, Inc. (Nasdaq:
FCSE) and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Focus between April 29, 1999 and March 1, 2000,
inclusive. The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, is brought in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The action charges that Focus improperly reported its financial results
including revenues and income in its public filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and in its press releases for the fiscal year
1999. On March 1, 2000, Focus announced that its independent auditors
had brought to the Board of Directors' attention financial controls
issues relating to the fiscal year ending December 31, 1999 and prior
quarters. The Board composed a committee to investigate the matter. Two
top officers agreed to a paid leave from the Company during which time
they would cooperate with the committee's review.

Contact: Alicia M. Duff, Esq. Jeffrey C. Block, Esq., Berman, DeValerio
& Pease LLP, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, E-Mail:
bdplaw@bermanesq.com or telephone 800-516-9926. You can also visit
website at http://www.bermanesq.com


FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Focus Enhancements, Inc. (Nasdaq: FCSE), between
April 29, 1999 and March 1, 2000, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint charges Focus Enhancements and certain of its directors
and executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that
the defendants issued materially false and misleading financial
statements for fiscal year On March 1, 2000, the Company announced that
its independent auditors had informed the Board that it had discovered
certain irregularities relating to the Company's financial controls for
fiscal 1999 and prior quarters. The Company's Board announced that it
formed a committee to investigate the matter. Additionally, two of the
Company's top officers were placed on leave and will cooperate with the
committee's review.

Contact: Mr. Mark Punzalan, Director of Shareholder Relations at
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New
York 10016, (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by e-mail at
Mark@bernlieb.com


HUGHES AIRCRAFT: Wins Appeal; Defined Benefit Plan No Rights to Assets
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Five retired employees of Hughes Aircraft Company brought a class action
suit claiming that Hughes violated ERISA when it amended its
contributory defined benefit retirement plan by creating a new benefit
structure for new participants that was noncontributory. Although the
district court dismissed the complaint, the Ninth Circuit reversed,
finding that the plan amendments adding the noncontributory benefit
structure may have terminated the plan and created two new plans. By
distinguishing Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), as
applicable only to plans funded solely by employer contributions, it
also held that the act of amending the plan triggered ERISA's fiduciary
obligations.

When the retirees who brought the action were employed, Hughes' plan
required contributions from participating employees as well as from
Hughes. By 1986, the plan's assets had grown to such an extent that they
exceeded the actuarial or present value of accrued benefits to
participants by almost $1 billion. Because of the surplus, Hughes
stopped making contributions in 1987 and has not contributed since,,
although the mandatory employee contributions provisions remained in
effect. Then, in 1989, Hughes established an early retirement program
that provided significant additional retirement benefits to certain
active employees, and it also amended the plan to provide that, as of
January 1, 1991, new participants could not contribute to the plan and
would receive fewer benefits as a result. Existing members could choose
to continue to contribute or to be treated as new participants. Even
with the additional obligations, the plan's assets substantially exceed
the minimum needed to fund all its current and future defined benefits.

The United States Supreme Court reversed, making it crystal clear that
its decision in Lockheed v. Spink cannot be distinguished on the basis
of the structure of an employee benefit plan. An employer plan sponsor
does not act as a fiduciary when it acts to create, amend or terminate a
plan, whether the plan is contributory, noncontributory, defined benefit
or defined contribution. ERISA does not require that employers provide
any particular benefits, so its fiduciary requirements do not apply when
an employer alters the terms of the plan in response to a decision about
the form or structure of the plan such as who contributes, who is
entitled to benefits and in what amounts, or how the benefits are
calculated.

The Supreme Court held that participants of a contributory defined
benefit plan have no vested right to the plan's surplus assets because
they are entitled to a fixed benefit from a general pool of assets and
the employer bears the entire investment risk.

The Court discussed the differences between defined contribution and
defined benefit plans in concluding that the amendments calling for the
use of surplus assets from the preamendment contributory structure to
pay benefits for the postamendment noncontributory structure neither
deprived the preamendment participants of accrued benefits nor resulted
in a violation of ERISA's anti-inurement provision that prohibits plan
assets from inuring to an employer's benefit. Because participants of a
defined benefit plan receive a fixed benefit from a general asset pool
regardless of the amount of contributions or investment return and their
employer must make up any shortfall in investment return to insure that
participants receive the defined benefit to which they are entitled, the
participants have no vested interest in any surplus assets even if the
return on their own contributions led to the surplus. In a defined
contribution plan, however, the employer does not bear the risk of
underfunding since the amount of the participants' benefits are
dependent upon the amount contributed to their individual accounts.
Moreover, there was no dispute that Hughes used the surplus assets only
to fund and pay pension benefits. That Hughes may have received some
legitimate, incidental benefit from the amendments, such as effectively
reducing its labor costs by using the plan surplus to increase employee
compensation by providing retirement incentives and/or including
employees in the noncontributory structure, is neither a breach of
fiduciary duty nor improper inurement.

Noting that ERISA gives employers broad authority to amend plans, the
Court also rejected the notion that creating a new benefit structure
also created a second plan where the pre- and postamendment obligations
continued to draw from the same single, unsegregated pool or fund of
assets. Finally, it rejected the argument that the 1991 amendment
required a court to order Hughes to terminate the plan because it
effectively terminated the plan under the common law theory of a wasting
trust. The Supreme Court pointed out that ERISA, as complex and detailed
as it is, provides only two means of voluntary plan termination, and it
should not be supplemented by such common law remedies. Regardless, the
wasting trust doctrine would not apply since the Hughes plan was not
"enfeebled," but had been paying all promised benefits and accepting new
members and had thousands of active participants continuing to accrue
benefits. (Benefits Quarterly, First Quarter 2000)


LEARN2.COM, INC.: 21 Months and No Progress in Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 22, 1998 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas by Jonathan L. Gordon, brought as a
putative class action against ViaGrafix and certain of its officers and
directors claiming violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in the Prospectus issued in connection
with ViaGrafix's initial public offering made in March 1998. Mr. Gordon
and certain others have sought designation as lead plaintiffs in the
action. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and,
Learn2.Com, Inc., notes in its latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, its response is not yet due.
Learn2.Com acquired all of the outstanding common stock of ViaGrafix
Corporation in August 1999.


MASTEC: Proposed Settlement Reached for Decade-Old Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A decade-old shareholder lawsuit against the current and former owners
of the Miami company MasTec, alleging mishandling of the 1993 merger of
two utility contracting firms, has ended with a proposed settlement.

Public shareholders of MasTec recently received notice by mail of a
proposal to distribute nearly $ 1 million to certain stockholders to
settle the class-action suit. Claimants include those who can prove they
were owners of Burnup & Sims common stock on Jan. 28, 1991. The
settlement must be approved by a Delaware court.

The long-running lawsuit, filed in 1991, and a related suit, filed in
1993, stem from a series of transactions before and during the 1993
reverse acquisition that the owners of Church & Tower made of Burnup &
Sims, which was based in Plantation. Church & Tower was owned by the
late Cuban-American political leader Jorge Mas Canosa, and Burnup and
Sims was headed by Nick Caporella.

In 1993, the Mas family acquired 65 percent of the shares of Burnup &
Sims in exchange for folding Church & Tower into the publicly held
company. The company's name then was changed to MasTec. Mas family
members are still the majority shareholders of MasTec.

The first lawsuit, filed by Miami investor Albert H. Kahn, charged that
Caporella had split apart numerous ties between National Beverage Corp.
and Burnup & Sims by awarding controlling interest in National Beverage
to himself and giving public shareholders too small a stake.

The second lawsuit charged that Caporella allowed the Mas family to
acquire control of Burnup & Sims at too low a price, also alleging that
the Mas family was aware that the management team led by Caporella
failed to watch out for the shareholders' interest.

The lawsuit also accused company directors of mismanagement and waste in
managing Burnup & Sims before the merger.

Under the proposed settlement, $ 975,000 would be distributed to
shareholders by National Beverage, along with up to $ 360,000 in legal
fees, if a Delaware court approves the settlement.

Kahn declined to comment, saying that he had signed a nondisclosure
agreement as part of the settlement. James Strum, the attorney on the
side of Kahn, also declined to comment on the settlement. The Herald was
unable to reach the attorney for MasTec, despite numerous attempts.

The description of the settlement said that although those who filed the
lawsuit still believed it had merit, they decided a settlement also had
benefits. In addition, although originally the shareholders felt the
price for Burnup & Sims was too low, share prices of MasTec and National
Beverage have risen substantially. (The Miami Herald, March 3, 2000)


PFIZER, INC.: 57,328 Asbestos & 68 Talc Claims Pend at Year-End
---------------------------------------------------------------
Through the early 1970s, Pfizer Inc. (Minerals Division) and Quigley
Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, sold a minimal amount of one
construction product and several refractory products containing some
asbestos. These sales were discontinued thereafter. Although these sales
represented a minor market share, the Company has been named as one of a
number of defendants in numerous lawsuits. These actions, and actions
related to the Company's sale of talc products in the past, claim
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
and nearly all seek general and punitive damages. In these actions, the
Company or Quigley is typically one of a number of defendants, and both
are members of the Center for Claims Resolution (the "CCR"), a joint
defense organization of sixteen defendants that is defending these
claims. The Company and Quigley are responsible for varying percentages
of defense and liability payments for all members of the CCR. A number
of cases alleging property damage from asbestos-containing products
installed in buildings have also been brought against the Company, but
most have been resolved.

As of January 29, 2000, there were 57,328 personal injury claims pending
against Quigley and 26,890 such claims against the Company (excluding
those that are inactive or have been settled in principle), and 68 talc
cases against the Company.

The Company believes that its costs incurred in defending and ultimately
disposing of the asbestos personal injury claims, as well as the
property damage and talc claims, will be largely covered by insurance
policies issued by several primary insurance carriers and a number of
excess carriers that have agreed to provide coverage, subject to
deductibles, exclusions, retentions and policy limits. Litigation
against excess insurance carriers seeking damages and/or declaratory
relief to secure their coverage obligations has now been largely
resolved, although claims against several of such insureds do remain
pending. Based on the Company's experience in defending the claims to
date and the amount of insurance coverage available, the Company is of
the opinion that the actions should not ultimately have a material
adverse effect on the financial position or the results of operations of
the Company.


PFIZER, INC.: Bulk of MTG's 700 Penile Prosthetic Cases Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
During 1998, Pfizer, Inc., completed the sale of all of the businesses
and companies that were part of the Medical Technology Group. As part of
the sale provisions, the Company has retained responsibility for certain
items, including matters related to the sale of MTG products sold by the
Company before the sale of the MTG businesses. A number of cases have
been brought against Howmedica Inc. (some of which also name Pfizer)
alleging that P.C.A. one-piece acetabular hip prostheses sold from 1983
through 1990 were defectively designed and manufactured and pose
undisclosed risks to implantees. These cases have now been resolved.
Between 1994 and 1996, seven class actions alleging various injuries
arising from implantable penile prostheses manufactured by American
Medical Systems were filed and ultimately dismissed or discontinued.
Thereafter, between late 1996 and early 1998, approximately 700 former
members of one or more of the purported classes, represented by some of
the same lawyers who filed the class actions, filed individual suits in
Circuit Court in Minneapolis alleging damages from their use of
implantable penile prostheses. Most of these claims, along with a number
of filed and unfiled claims from other jurisdictions, have now been
resolved. The Company believes that most if not all of these cases are
without merit.


PFIZER, INC.: Houston Rid Suit Withdrawn; 3 Rid Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since December 1998, four actions have been filed, in state courts in
Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and New Orleans, purportedly on behalf
of statewide (California) or nationwide (Houston, Chicago and New
Orleans) classes of consumers who allege that Pfizer, Inc.'s and other
manufacturers' advertising and promotional claims for Rid and other
pediculicides were untrue, entitling them to refunds, other damages
and/or injunctive relief. The Houston case has been voluntarily
dismissed and proceedings in the San Francisco, Chicago and New Orleans
cases are still in early stages of the proceedings. The Company believes
the complaints are without merit.


PFIZER, INC.: One Retail Pharmacy Issue Remanded & FDA Knocks
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993, the Pfizer, Inc., was named, together with numerous other
manufacturers of brand-name prescription drugs and certain companies
that distribute brand-name prescription drugs, in suits in federal and
state courts brought by various groups of retail pharmacy companies,
alleging that the manufacturers violated the Sherman Act by agreeing not
to give retailers certain discounts and that the failure to give such
discounts violated the Robinson Patman Act. A class action was brought
on the Sherman Act claim, as well as additional actions by approximately
3,500 individual retail pharmacies and a group of chain and supermarket
pharmacies (the "individual actions") on both the Sherman Act and
Robinson Patman Act claims. A retailer class was certified in 1994 (the
"Federal Class Action"). In 1996, fifteen manufacturer defendants,
including the Company, settled the Federal Class Action. The Company's
share was $31.25 million, payable in four annual installments without
interest. Trial began in September 1998 for the class case against the
non-settlers, and the District Court also permitted the opt-out
plaintiffs to add the wholesalers as named defendants in their cases.
The District Court dismissed the case at the close of the plaintiffs'
evidence. The plaintiffs appealed and, on July 13, 1999, the Court of
Appeals upheld most of the dismissal but remanded on one issue, while
expressing doubts that the plaintiffs could prove any damages.

Retail pharmacy cases also have been filed in state courts in five
states, and consumer class actions were filed in state courts in
fourteen states and the District of Columbia alleging injury to
consumers from the failure to give discounts to retail pharmacy
companies.

In addition to its settlement of the retailer Federal Class Action (see
above), the Company has also settled several major opt-out retail cases,
and along with other manufacturers: (1) has entered into an agreement to
settle all outstanding consumer class actions (except Alabama,
California and North Dakota), which settlement is going through the
approval process in the various courts in which the actions are pending;
and (2) has entered into an agreement to settle the California consumer
case, which has been approved by the Court there.

The Company believes that these brand-name prescription drug antitrust
cases, which generally seek damages and certain injunctive relief, are
without merit.

The Federal Trade Commission opened an investigation focusing on the
pricing practices at issue in the above pharmacy antitrust litigation.
In July 1996, the Commission issued a subpoena for documents to the
Company, among others, to which the Company responded. A second subpoena
was issued to the Company for documents in May 1997 and the Company
again responded. The Company is not aware of any further activity.


PFIZER, INC.: Our Antiarthritic Didn't Kill Your Dogs!
------------------------------------------------------
In October 1999, Pfizer, Inc., was sued in an action seeking unspecified
damages, costs and attorney's fees on behalf of a purported class of
people whose dogs had suffered injury or death after ingesting Rimadyl,
an antiarthritic medication for older dogs. The suit, which was filed in
state court in South Carolina, is in the early pretrial stages. The
Company believes it is without merit.


PFIZER, INC.: Pfizer Brazil Escapes $88MM Moral Damages Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1993, the Ministry of Justice of the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil,
commenced a civil public action against the Company's Brazilian
subsidiary, Laboratorios Pfizer Ltda. ("Pfizer Brazil") asserting that
during a period in 1991 Pfizer Brazil withheld sale of the
pharmaceutical product Diabinese in violation of antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The action sought the award of moral, economic and
personal damages to individuals and the payment to a public reserve
fund. In February 1996, the trial court issued a decision holding Pfizer
Brazil liable. The trial court's opinion also established the amount of
moral damages for individuals who might make claims later in the
proceeding and set out a formula for calculating the payment into the
public reserve fund which could have resulted in a sum of approximately
$88 million. Pfizer Brazil appealed this decision. In September 1999,
the appeals court issued a ruling upholding the trial court's decision
as to liability. However, the appeals court decision overturned the
trial court's decision concerning damages, ruling that criteria to apply
in the calculation of damages, both as to individuals and as to payment
of any amounts to the reserve fund, should be established only in a
later stage of the proceeding. The Company believes that this action
should not have a material adverse effect on the financial position or
the results of operations of the Company.


PFIZER, INC.: Plax Customer Class Certification Sub Judice
----------------------------------------------------------
On January 15, 1997, an action was filed in Circuit Court, Chambers
County, Alabama, purportedly on behalf of a class of consumers,
variously defined by the laws or types of laws governing their rights
and encompassing residents of up to 47 states. The complaint alleges
that Pfizer, Inc.'s claims for Plax were untrue, entitling them to a
refund of their purchase price for purchases since 1988. A hearing on
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class was held on June 2, 1998. Pfizer
awaits the Court's decision. The Company believes the complaint is
without merit.

Additionally, FDA administrative proceedings relating to Plax are
pending, principally an industry-wide call for data on all anti-plaque
products by the FDA. The call-for-data notice specified that products
that have been marketed for a material time and to a material extent may
remain on the market pending FDA review of the data, provided the
manufacturer has a good faith belief that the product is generally
recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded. The Company
believes that Plax satisfied these requirements and prepared a response
to the FDA's request, which was filed on June 17, 1991. This filing, as
well as the filings of other manufacturers, is still under review and is
currently being considered by an FDA Advisory Committee. The Committee
has issued a draft report recommending that plaque removal claims should
not be permitted in the absence of data establishing efficacy against
gingivitis. The process of incorporating the Advisory Committee
recommendations into a final monograph is expected to take several
years. If the draft recommendation is ultimately accepted in the final
monograph, although it would have a negative impact on sales of Plax, it
will not have a material adverse effect on the sales, financial position
or operations of the Company.


PFIZER, INC.: Says Desitin Baby Powder Labeling Case is Nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December, 1999 and January, 2000, two suits were filed in California
state courts against Pfizer, Inc., and other manufacturers of zinc
oxide-containing powders. The first suit was filed by the Center for
Environmental Health and the second was filed by an individual plaintiff
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of baby powder products.
The suits generally allege that the label of Desitin powder violates
California's "Proposition 65" by failing to warn of the presence of
lead, which is alleged to be a carcinogen. In January, 2000, the Company
received a notice from a California environmental group alleging that
the labeling of Desitin ointment and powder violates Proposition 65 by
failing to warn of the presence of cadmium, which is alleged to be a
carcinogen. Several other manufacturers of zinc oxide-containing topical
baby products have received similar notices. The Company believes that
the labeling for Desitin complies with applicable legal requirements.


PINOCHET: Chileans and 60 Lawsuits Await His Arrival
----------------------------------------------------
Supporters and opponents of Augusto Pinochet awaited the arrival of the
ex-dictator early Friday, March 3, amid uncertainty over the itinerary
of the air force plane he boarded in Britain, reports Agence France
Presse, March 3, 2000. More than 1,500 people had spent much of the
night awaiting Pinochet's arrival in Iquique, but many went home as the
airport lights were turned off around 4:30 a.m. (0730 GMT.), the report
says. There was no immediate word on the whereabouts of the Chilean Air
Force Boeing 707 that Pinochet boarded in Britain after being freed from
16 months of house arrest, the report goes on. Pinochet Foundation
officials had said earlier the plane would arrive around midnight (0300
GMT) in Iquique where Pinochet would rest a few hours before flying on
to Santiago, according to Agence France Presse.

In Santiago, supporters and opponents of the former dictator held
overnight vigils to mark the impending return of the ex-strongman whose
1973-1990 dictatorship has been blamed for more than 3,000 deaths and
tens of thousands of cases of torture. Dozens of people waited outside
the military hospital where Pinochet was expected to stay for a few
days.

"It is the return of a hero," said a jubilant Jacqueline Aravena, 48.
"We want him to become president once more, so he can give this country
peace and security again and give it back its dignity and honor," said
Aravena, who held up a picture of Pinochet in full gala uniform, AFP
reports.

A few kilometers (miles) away, hundreds of people clad in black, stood
outside La Moneda presidential palace holding aloft pictures of friends
and relatives killed during Pinochet's military dictatorship. "We feel
anger and impotence over the decision to free Pinochet," said Patricia
Silva, who leads a human rights group and whose brother was killed by
the dictatorship's death squads in 1987, the report brings out the
contrast.

Human rights groups support Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon's attempts to
put Pinochet on trial for torture, but are now pressing for his
prosecution at home after British Home Secretary Jack Straw refused to
extradite him to Spain, according to AFP.

On March 2 a new lawsuit was filed against Pinochet by the relatives of
a man who "disappeared" after being seized in 1974 by Pinochet's
notorious political police. This latest case brings to 60 the number of
lawsuits Pinochet faces in Chile.

Silva, according to AFP, said that her group, which has filed a class
action suit against Pinochet, would join other plaintiffs in requesting
that the country's highest court lift the immunity from prosecution
Pinochet enjoys as a senator for life. But she remained skeptical about
the chances of ever seeing the ex-dictator in court, saying that the
courts' hands were tied by laws passed under Pinochet to protect the
regime's leadership.

President Eduardo Frei pledged the justice system would be fully
independent in dealing with Pinochet. Judge Juan Guzman, who has been
appointed to deal with the lawsuits against Pinochet in Chile, has said
he would seek to interview the ex-strongman and would also ask that he
undergo medical tests to assess whether he is mentally fit for trial.
Under Chilean law, poor physical health, cited by Britain in freeing
Pinochet, would not prevent a trial from going ahead.

Jacqueline Pinochet, one of the ex-strongman's daughters, said in a
television interview that her father would be willing to stand trial.

In Washington, AFP reports, the US ambassador at large for war crimes
issues, David Scheffer, said: "We have a high degree of confidence in
the capabilities of the Chilean government and court systems to proceed
ahead" in handling the Pinochet case.

In Lisbon, AFP says, European Union foreign policy maker Javier Solana
added his support to calls for Chile to prosecute Pinochet, commenting,
"I understand the frustration of the victims' families in Chile."


SAIPAN SWEATSHOP: 6 U.S. Retailers Added to Landmark Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Six additional major U.S. clothing manufacturers and retailers --
including Levi Strauss & Company, Calvin Klein, Inc., Brooks Brothers,
Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Co., The Talbots Inc. and Woolrich Inc. --
were added to a class action lawsuit alleging sweatshop conditions on
Saipan, a U.S. Commonwealth in the Western Pacific.

The announcement on March 3 comes one month after a federal appellate
court ruled in favor of keeping the class action lawsuit in Hawaii
instead of moving the case to Saipan, as the defendants requested.

The six retailers along with additional Saipan garment factory owners
are being added to a pending class action that is the first-ever attempt
to hold U.S. retailers accountable for mistreatment of workers in
foreign-owned factories operating on U.S. soil. According to the
complaint, the more than 13,000 garment workers in Saipan regularly work
12-hour days, seven days a week, often times "off the clock" without
receiving any pay or overtime.

These companies are accused of violating federal law by allegedly
participating in a "racketeering conspiracy" through which garment
workers -- predominantly young women -- sign "shadow contracts" waiving
their basic human rights and pay "recruitment fees" as high as $10,000.
These conditions are alleged to have created a status akin to indentured
servitude on the island, which has been illegal in the United States
since the Civil War.

"The conditions that have been allowed to persist in Saipan's garment
factories are unlawful, morally offensive and contrary to the values
that Americans hold dear," said Medea Benjamin, Founding Director of
Global Exchange. One of the new defendants, Levi Strauss & Co. announced
in 1992 that they would not do business with any supplier that violated
the labor rights of workers after one of its contractors on Saipan was
accused of violating U.S. wage and hour laws by the Department of Labor.
The company also promised that it would implement newly revised
guidelines aimed at preserving workers' rights.

"Levi Strauss has no excuse. They've clearly known about the problems
for at least eight years, yet turned a blind eye to the conditions in
the factories where their clothes are made," continued Benjamin.

Over the past few months, nine major retailers, including Nordstrom, J.
Crew, Cutter & Buck and Gymboree, have agreed to a comprehensive
settlement of the litigation and committed to requiring their Saipan
contractors in the future to meet strict workplace and living conditions
and not to impose illegal recruitment fees. An independent monitoring
body known as Verite will ensure compliance, by conducting thorough
surveillance and making unannounced visits to the factories.

Contact: Elizabeth Buchanan or Valerie Holford, both of Fenton
Communications, 202-822-5200, for Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
LLP


SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Announces '99 Results under Cloud of Antitrust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BID; LSE), the parent company of
Sotheby's worldwide live and Internet auction businesses, art-related
financing and real estate activities, announced that for the full year
and fourth quarter ended December 31, 1999, the Company reported total
revenues of $442.6 million, compared to $447.1 million for the previous
year. Net income for the full year 1999 was $32.9 million ($0.56 per
diluted share) compared to net income of $45.0 million ($0.79 per
diluted share including non-recurring charges) for 1998. Full year net
income of $32.9 million was impacted by approximately $42.1 million of
internet related expenses ($0.45 per diluted share).

For the quarter ended December 31, 1999, the Company reported total
revenues of $188.1 million, compared to $180.6 million for the
corresponding period of 1998. The Company's net income for the fourth
quarter of 1999 was $34.4 million ($0.57 per diluted share) compared to
net income for the fourth quarter of 1998 of $ 38.5 million ($0.66 per
diluted share). Total revenues of $442.6 million were down 1%, due to
significantly reduced Financial Services revenues. In addition, the
sales mix moved to higher-end, single-owner sales, which resulted in
margin pressure on auction revenues. The fourth quarter of 1998 included
the recognition of additional revenue of $ 18.7 million relating to a
gain involving one major loan transaction.

On February 21, 2000, the Board of Directors of Sotheby's Holdings, Inc.
announced the appointment of Michael Sovern, former President of
Columbia University, as the new Chairman of the Board of Directors of
Sotheby's Holdings. The Board also announced the appointment of Bill
Ruprecht, former Managing Director of Sotheby's North and South America,
as President and Chief Executive Officer of Sotheby's Holdings. Joining
Mr. Ruprecht in the Office of the Chief Executive are Robin Woodhead,
Chief Executive of Sotheby's Europe and Asia and an Executive Vice
President, and Deborah Zoullas, Executive Vice President of Sotheby's
Holdings. Mr. Ruprecht, Mr. Woodhead and Ms. Zoullas were elected to the
Board of Sotheby's Holdings, effective immediately.

The Company is setting aside some $4.2 million instead of paying a
dividend this quarter.

                      Antitrust Investigation

The Company reports again that the Antitrust Division of the Department
of Justice began an investigation in 1997 of dealers and auction houses,
including Sotheby's and its principal competitor, Christie's. Among
other matters, the investigation has reviewed whether Sotheby's and
Christie's had any agreement regarding the amounts charged for
commissions in connection with auctions. Sotheby's has recently met with
the Department of Justice in order to discuss a prompt and appropriate
resolution of this investigation, which will allow the Company to put
this difficult matter behind it. The European Commission and the
Australian Competition Commission each have inquiries under way as well,
and a number of private civil complaints, styled as class action
complaints, have been filed against Christie's and Sotheby's alleging
violation of the federal antitrust laws based upon alleged agreements
between Christie's and Sotheby's regarding commission pricing. In
addition, several shareholder class action complaints have been filed
against Sotheby's and certain of its officers, alleging failure to
disclose the alleged agreements and their impact on Sotheby's financial
condition and results of operations. The Company believes that although
the outcome of the investigation by the Department of Justice, other
governmental inquiries and these lawsuits cannot presently be
determined, these matters could well have a material impact on Sotheby's
financial condition and/or results of operations.

Mr. Ruprecht commented: "Sotheby's is now going through a period of
great challenge. We are determined to meet this challenge and we are
equally determined to build on the significant achievements of the past
year. Our commitment to our clients, to our shareholders and to our
staff around the world who have contributed so significantly to the
successes of 1999, remains unwavering."

The New York Times, March 3, notes that this is the first time the
auction house omits a dividend payout. The paper remarks that the reason
for this is the government's price-fixing probe. The article also says
that the cash set aside could be used to settle some of the three dozen
lawsuits filed against the Company since the investigation became
public. The Company said it would like to use some of the money saved by
omitting the dividend to finance its Internet business and the expansion
of its headquarters building on the Upper East Side.

The company got another burst of bad news when shareholders initiated a
class-action lawsuit on March 2, claiming that executives knew of the
illegal price-fixing arrangements and did not disclose them, thus
artificially propping up the stock price, the New York Times reports.

In 1997, the Justice Department began investigating whether Sotheby's
and larger rival Christie's International PLC conspired to fix
commissions charged to buyers and sellers. The European Commission and
the Australian Competition Commission also are conducting inquiries.
When the probe became public knowledge, CEO Diana "Dede" Brooks and
Chairman Albert Taubman resigned. Sotheby's stock fell 27 percent this
year. According to the New York Times, the company has said it recently
met with the Justice Department to discuss a resolution of the probe.

The company was expected to earn 55 cents, the average estimate of three
analysts polled by First Call/Thomson Financial, the New York Times
reports.


SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio & Pease LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of
Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BID) between February 11, 1997 and
February 21, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint claims that the Company and certain of its officers
violated the federal securities laws by failing to reveal the during the
Class Period, the Company was conspiring with Christie's International
to fix the commission rates charged for goods sold at the auction
houses. As a result, Sotheby's revenues and financial results were
allegedly reliant upon an illegal price fixing arrangement. The
complaint further alleges that the defendants' false and misleading
statements artificially inflated the price of Sotheby's common stock
during the Class Period.

Contact: Patrick Egan, Esq. of Berman, DeValerio & Pease, LLP,
800-516-9926


TELEPHONE COMPANIES: FCC, FTC Clamp Down on Phone Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
The Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission
issued a joint policy statement outlining principles that long-distance
companies should follow to avoid enforcement action for deceptive
advertising, reports Washington, AP. FCC Chairman William Kennard said
this policy statement is a critical step in protecting the core rights
of consumers; it ensures that consumers will have the knowledge they
need to select the carrier of their choice and be fairly charged for the
services they use.

According to Washington, AP, one company, MCI WorldCom, already has
agreed to settle charges over ads for its so-called dial-around
services, which require callers to dial a string of numbers before
placing a call. The consent agreement requires MCI to review a year's
worth of past ads for dial-around service, submit a report to the FCC
and pay $100,000, the report says.

``For far too long, these companies have enticed consumers with
misleading advertisements,'' quotes Washington, AP of Rep. Nita M.
Lowey, D-N.Y. Saying some dial-around telephone companies, notably
''10-10'' services, ``have misled consumers with unfulfilled promises of
cheaper rates,'' Lowey unveiled legislation that would require companies
to disclose rates and charges in all forms of advertising and allow
consumers a way to ``opt out'' of the dial-around services when
initially making a call. Other components of the agreement deal with
disclosure of prices for national directory assistance, also a
dial-around service, and customer service to answer questions about
dial-around.

The FCC said that it received nearly 3,000 complaints from consumers
about allegedly deceptive or misleading advertising by marketers of
dial-around service in the first six months of 1999 alone. Officials
said examples include claims of 10-cent-a-minute service ``all day and
all night'' when the rate is actually applicable only for state-to-state
calls after 7 p.m. on weekends. In another example, Washington AP says,
a marketer conveyed the message that long-distance calls cost a dime a
minute and did not disclose the fact that each call is subject to a
50-cent minimum charge. In a third case, the FCC said, according to
Washington AP, long-distance calls costing a dime a minute are available
only to customers who pay a $5.95 monthly fee.

The FCC said 20 percent of U.S. households have used dial-around
services in the last year. Such services represent 7.5 percent of the
long-distance market, with revenues reaching $3 billion in 1999.

The new policy contains these elements:

  -- All claims for long-distance service, including cost, must be
     truthful, nonmisleading and substantiated.

  -- All costs that may be incurred by consumers should be disclosed,
     including minimum charges per call, monthly fees and universal
     service charges.

  -- The basis of comparative price claims should be disclosed and only
     current information should be used in making such claims.

  -- Information should be disclosed ``in a clear and conspicuous
     manner, and without distracting elements so that consumers can
     understand it.''


TIM HORTONS: Canadian TDL Group's Coffeeshop Chain Recalls Coffeemakers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, D.C. - In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), Tim Hortons, a chain of coffeeshops operated by the
TDL Group Ltd., of Ontario, Canada, is recalling about 31,000
coffeemakers sold in the U.S. and Canada. The coffeepot's handle can
break, causing the pot to fall. Consumers can suffer burn injuries from
hot coffee or lacerations from broken glass.

Tim Hortons has received 150 reports of handles breaking off of the
coffeepots, resulting in nine burn injuries.

The recalled coffeemaker is made of black plastic. The coffeepot is made
of glass with a black plastic handle. The top of the handle has a red
thumbrest. Measurement units on the pot are "24 oz/682 mL" and
"48oz/1363 mL." "Tim Hortons" is on the coffeemaker and the coffeepot.

Tim Hortons coffeeshops in Kentucky, Ohio, Maine, Michigan, New York and
West Virginia sold the coffeemakers from October 1999 through February
2000 for about $65.

Tim Hortons coffeemakers that are made of white plastic are not part of
this recall.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Liggett Turns against RJ Reynolds on Antitrust
------------------------------------------------------------------
Liggett Group began a legal assault on a company in its own industry by
filing an antitrust suit against RJ Reynolds, claiming the world's
second-largest cigarette maker conspired with retailers to fix prices, a
report on Financial Times (London) says, March 3, 2000. The report
comments that while tobacco producers have been flooded with lawsuits
from every conceivable quarter, it is still rare for them to attack each
other.

Liggett, part of the diversified US manufacturer Brooke Group, was the
first cigarette maker to reach a legal settlement with a group of US
states, and a decade ago it became the first to sue a rival - in that
instance, BAT's Brown & Williamson unit.

The most recent lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, follows
last month's proposed class-action suit brought against the industry on
behalf of a group of tobacco wholesalers and manufacturers who are also
alleging price fixing. Liggett's suit claims that RJR "has entered into
illegal pricing arrangements with retailers that cause retailers to
raise the price of non-RJR discount cigarettes to the detriment of
Liggett, other tobacco manufacturers and consumers."

Specifically, Liggett is challenging RJR's "Every Day Low Pricing"
programme, where RJR enters into contracts with retailers under which
they receive substantial payments in exchange for complying with various
pricing restrictions.

In return for those payments, Liggett argues, retailers promote RJR's
Pyramid cigarettes as their main discount brand. But instead of doing so
by lowering the price of Pyramid, they raise the price of other discount
brands, including Liggett's Doral cigarettes.

The Financial Times (London) says that since Liggett is the smallest of
the main tobacco makers, with a 1.5 per cent market share focused
largely on discount brands, it claims it is particularly badly hit by
this practice.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Would Accept Sales Drop, Even Retreat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A top Philip Morris executive made a conciliatory appearance at a
national addiction conference, declaring that the tobacco giant would
accept a drastic loss of sales and even an eventual retreat from the
cigarette business if that's what it takes to stop teen smoking,
according to Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2000.

"As much money as possible should be devoted . . . to the very real
problem of youth smoking in this country," Steven C. Parrish, a senior
vice president of Philip Morris, told more than 300 public health
officials and substance abuse experts at the meeting in Simi Valley. If
the end result is that "our adult business dries up," then "our company
is prepared to accept that . . . and we will invest our assets in other
businesses," Parrish said.

Speaking against a backdrop of battered share prices and intense legal
peril for the tobacco industry, Parrish also said during an exchange
with former Food and Drug Commissioner David Kessler that he had "no
problem saying" nicotine is an addictive drug.

And he called for "serious regulation of the tobacco industry at the
federal level," a goal he said he has begun to pursue in recent days
through conversations with members of Congress. Although Parrish has
provided only sketchy details, he has mentioned tougher cigarette
warning labels, disclosure of cigarette additives and ingredients, and
guidelines for marketing less-hazardous products.

But critics note that Philip Morris, the top U.S. cigarette maker, and
its rivals remain firmly opposed to FDA authority to regulate nicotine
levels in cigarettes -- whereas tobacco control advocates won't accept
anything less, according to Los Angeles Times. The paper reminds that
the Supreme Court is expected to rule in the next few months on the
industry's challenge of FDA authority.

The industry needs regulation to determine how it can market a new
generation of cigarettes and cigarette-like devices, now in the
development stage, that supposedly give a nicotine kick but greatly
reduced levels of cancer-causing tar, remarks Los Angeles Times.
Regulations are needed to establish what the companies can legally say
to promote products that are purportedly less hazardous yet are still
not safe, the article says.

"They need a governmental agency to give credibility to the idea that a
new product is safer," said Matt Myers, president of Washington-based
the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But he said health groups would
fight for limits on marketing such "safer" products to ensure the
promotions do not lead more people to smoke.

Industry observers say Philip Morris also hopes its outreach to Congress
and public health groups somehow will resonate favorably with judges and
juries, who increasingly hold the industry's fate in their hands, notes
the Los Angeles Times.

Tobacco companies are defending a massive lawsuit by the Justice
Department that seeks to recover federal expenditures to treat sick
smokers under Medicare and other programs. Later this month or next,
they could also be hit with a punitive damages award of $ 100 billion or
more in a Florida class-action case on behalf of dead or dying smokers.

On the second day of the substance abuse conference at the Ronald Reagan
Presidential Library and Museum, Parrish and Kessler, along with Peter
Coors, chief executive of Coors Brewing Co., and Robert Pitofsky,
chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, served on a panel discussing
U.S. policy toward legal drugs. But much of the time was consumed by a
conversation between Kessler and Parrish that almost had the air of a
negotiating session. At one point, Los Angeles Times reports, Kessler,
now dean of the medical school at Yale University, told Parrish that
acknowledging that nicotine "is a drug . . . is a very, very big first
step, and I applaud you for it."

Near the end of the session, the report goes on, Joseph A. Califano Jr.,
head of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, which
sponsored the conference, drew an audible gasp when he told the mostly
out-of-town audience that Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan wants to
earmark city tobacco settlement funds to pay legal damages from the
Rampart police scandal--rather than spend the money to fight youth
smoking. The money is the city's share of proceeds from the industry's
landmark settlement of lawsuits by states and several cities in 1998. "I
think that's an outrage," said Califano, suggesting that he and Parrish
draft a joint letter urging Riordan to change his mind.


TRANS UNION: FTC Orders Halt to Peddling Borrowers' Financial Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
The FTC ordered one of the country's biggest credit reporting agencies,
Trans Union LLC, to stop peddling sensitive financial data about
individual borrowers to marketers, reports Los Angeles Times, March 3.

The FTC has also proposed regulations that would require financial
services companies ranging from check cashers to department stores to
post a conspicuous privacy policy and allow customers to prohibit the
companies' sharing of personal data with marketers, the report says. The
same disclosure rules are being imposed on banks.

Personal information is turning into one of the Internet's biggest
assets, and online marketers are doing all they can to gather it, often
encroaching on consumer privacymes, remarks Los Angeles Times, which
says The Federal Trade Commission is becoming the government's top
Internet cop.


VISX, INC: Barrack, Rodos Commences Securities Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine commenced a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
stock of Visx, Inc. between March 1, 1999 and February 22, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Visx and certain of its officers with
violations of the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements about the Company's business and revenue
growth relating to its Excimer Laser Systems. The complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, the individual defendants, who
controlled and were senior officers of Visx, were aware that the
Company's per procedure fee was being severely threatened by
competitors who did not charge the fee and that Visx was losing
market share. The complaint charges that the individual defendants,
with the knowledge that the Company's future results would not be as
favorable as defendants had led the market to believe, sold 1.4
million shares of Visx stock, reaping insider trading proceeds of
more than $96 million. According to the complaint, when the
competitive pressures resulted in the Company announcing a drop in
revenues and reduction in the Company's per procedure fee, the price
of its stock plummeted to $16 per share from a class period high of
over $103.

For additional information on this action, please contact Maxine S.
Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager, at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine,
3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, at 800-417-7305 or 215-963-0600, fax number 888-417-7306 or
215-963-0838, or by e-mail at msgoldman@barrack.com or visit the
firm's website at http://www.barrack.com


VISX, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of VISX, Inc. (Nasdaq: VISX), between March 1, 1999
and February 22, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The complaint charges VISX and certain of its directors and executive
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading information about VISX's
business, prospects and earnings potential during the Class Period.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company materially
misrepresented and concealed problems it was experiencing in sustaining
its earnings growth and materially misrepresented that it would be able
to maintain its $250 per procedure licensing fee because of limited
competition. At the end of the Class Period, the truth was revealed that
VISX was experiencing severe problems in earnings and would reduce its
procedure licensing fee to $100. In response, VISX's stock plunged to
$16.00 per share, from a Class Period high of $103-7/8.

Contact: Mr. Mark Punzalan, Director of Shareholder Relations at
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New
York 10016, 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by e-mail at
Mark@bernlieb.com


VISX, INC: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of VISX, Inc. between March 1, 1999 and February
22,2000.

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 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 Feb. 23, 2000.

For concerns regarding the above-mentioned lawsuit, please contact
any one of the following attorneys: Steven J. Toll (stoll@cmht.com)
or Tamara J. Driscoll (tdriscoll@cmht.com) of Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 999 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98104. PH, by telephone at 888/240-1238 or 206/521-0080 or visit the
firm's website at http://www.cmht.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.   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  * * *