CAR_Public/000308.MBX                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Wednesday, March 8, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 47

                             Headlines

AK STEEL: USWA Updates NLRB Charges Including Bill Johnson's
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Donovan Miller Files Securities Suit in Indiana
CA TEACHER: Teachers Sue Association over Payment Of Union Dues
CARSON, INC : James, Hoyer Files Suit over Defective Hair Relaxer
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Obtains Dismissal of 1997 Securities Litigation

CINAR CORPORATION: Founders Resign; More Irregularities Found
COCA COLA: Asks Judge to Reprimand Attorneys in Racial Bias Case
CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NJ
CYBERSHOP.COM: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Securities Suit Recoils; WLF Files Amicus Brief

D.C. MENTAL: Agreement Ends '97 Court Receivership of Health System
DUPONT: Suit over Procurement of Settlement Can Proceed Despite Waiver
DYNAMEX INC: Auditors Resign; Stock Exchange to Strike Co. from List
FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Lawsuit in MA
FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in MA

HMOs: CA Suit Names 5 Medicare Providers for Failure to Cover Expenses
JDN REALTY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Lawsuit in Georgia
JONES APPAREL: Resolves Allegations Concerning Nine West Shoes Pricing
RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in PA
RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in PA

TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT's Broughton Presents Robust Set of Figures
VISX INC: Shepherd & Geller Files Securities Suit in California

                           *********

AK STEEL: USWA Updates NLRB Charges Including Bill Johnson's
------------------------------------------------------------
An announcement by The United Steelworkers of America (USWA), March 6,
says that the union has updated the four National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) charges it has filed against Middletown, Ohio-based AK Steel.
Allegations against the embattled steelmaker include bad faith
bargaining, unlawful surveillance and two Bill Johnson's charges.

A Bill Johnson's charge is often filed in response to what the charging
party believes is a bogus lawsuit intended to harass and punish
employees engaged in lawful activity, and if upheld, would hold the
company accountable for all the attorney's fees accrued in defending its
baseless and retaliatory suits against the union and its members.

The first charge, filed in July of 1999, alleges that the company
repudiated the existing collective bargaining agreement and brought in
unnecessary security to harass and intimidate workers during contract
negotiations.

It contains a Bill Johnson's charge in response to the company's
allegedly baseless and retaliatory lawsuit that claims members of USWA
Local 169 conspired with the Local Union and its International in a
concerted effort to refuse to work overtime. In reality, the USWA feels
that employees were exercising their contractual right not to be
compelled or coerced into working overtime. All evidence on the charge
has been submitted, and both sides are waiting the NLRB's decision on
issuing a complaint.

The second charge, filed on October 18, 1999, and amended on February
23, 2000, alleges that the company unlawfully enforced the current
lockout of Local 169 and has intentionally prolonged the dispute by bad
faith bargaining. A victory for the union in this suit could carry with
it a substantial back pay liability. The NLRB has yet to rule on this
charge, however.

The third charge, filed on January 24, 2000, asserts that AK Steel
security personnel have engaged in illegal surveillance of union
members' homes, the Local 169 Union Hall and other instances of union
members allegedly engaged in obviously lawful activities -- designed to
intimidate, harass and prevent members from participating in legal
union-oriented functions. USWA attorneys are still in the process of
gathering information and affidavits to submit as evidence to the NLRB
in this case.

The fourth and final charge, filed on January 28, 2000, contains another
Bill Johnson's charge in response to AK Steel's allegedly baseless and
retaliatory claims in federal court that the Local Union conspired with
the International Union and several individuals employed by the City of
Mansfield to prevent the company from hiring replacement workers.

However, the USWA asserts that filing a motion to keep replacement
workers out of the plant is a protected activity under the National
Labor Relations Act and any claims of a conspiracy are without merit and
aimed at intimidation of union and city officials from carrying out
their obligations to the community.

According to the USWA, AK Steel (then Armco) locked out 620 workers on
September 1, 1999, and currently faces a class-action lawsuit in
Richland County Common Pleas Court filed on March 3, 2000, that alleges
a breach of contract with its locked out employees and may result in
substantial back pay liabilities estimated at nearly a million dollars
if a jury finds in the union's favor.


ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Donovan Miller Files Securities Suit in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan Miller, LLC, announced on March 2 that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division against Analytical
Surveys, Inc. (Nasdaq: - ANLT - news), and certain of its Officers and
Directors, on behalf of all persons who purchased ASI securities between
January 25, 1999 and January 27, 2000, inclusive. The plaintiffs in the
case are stock purchasers who are alleged to have sustained losses as a
result of defendants' alleged violations.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued
false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning
ASI's revenues, income and earnings per share and thereby violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint further alleges that the price of ASI's shares was
artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' omissions of material
fact.

Contact: Donovan Miller, LLC Ann Miller, 215/732-6020 Fax: 215/732-8060
http://www.dmlaw.commdonovan@dmlaw.com


CA TEACHER: Teachers Sue Association over Payment Of Union Dues
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of eight teachers, including one from San Jose, filed suit in
federal court on March 6 against the California Teachers Association and
more than 400 local school districts over collection of compulsory union
dues from their paychecks, The San Francisco Chronicle, March 7, 2000,
reports. The teachers are challenging a practice by which union locals,
in conjunction with school districts, deduct "agency fees" for
collective bargaining without first performing a legally mandated audit
of how the funds are used. They want their suit to receive class-action
status so that it applies to the nearly 15,000 nonunion teachers in the
state who may also object to the use of such fees for political
activities.

If a teacher objects to how such funds are used, he or she is entitled
to a refund of politics-related dues -- usually about $200, or a third
of the total amount collected by the union each year, according to The
San Francisco Chronicle. The audit determines the percentage that can be
returned, the report says.

"The union is not entitled to the fees unless they do the audit," said
Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation,
which is providing legal aid to the plaintiffs. "They've come up with a
dodge to avoid the audit," quotes The San Francisco Chronicle.

Teachers' associations in many school districts statewide rely on a
so-called local union presumption -- a presumption that an audit of how
they use funds would be the same as that of a sampling of districts
conducted by the statewide union, The San Francisco Chronicle reveals.
In this way, the local associations say they can save time and money by
claiming the union's audit as their own and thus meet legal requirements
for collection of fees. "There's nothing in the law that allows a local
union presumption," insisted Milton Chappell, staff attorney for the
National Right to Work Foundation. "Every court that has looked at it
has struck it down."

Last April, a federal judge ruled that the union could not force eight
public-school teachers in Livermore, Fremont, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, San
Jose and Ukiah to pay dues without first disclosing audited financial
statements. U.S. District Judge Charles Legge said all union locals are
obliged to hire an auditor so that nonunion teachers can see exactly how
their money is spent.

However, Beverly Tucker, chief counsel for the California Teachers
Association, said Legge's ruling applied only to the eight plaintiffs in
that case -- a point that advocates for nonunion teachers do not
dispute. She declined to comment on the lawsuit without first seeing the
complaint, but stressed that "there has been no court decision that
addresses local union presumption."

The Foundation's Chappell countered that while Legge could only apply
his ruling last year to the eight plaintiffs in that case, he in fact
ruled "on what the law requires for all school districts," The San
Francisco Chronicle reports. By returning to the issue on a class-action
basis, Chappell said he intends for the court to address local union
presumption on a broader scale, requiring all teachers' associations to
perform financial audits.

The new lawsuit asks that the court declare collection of union dues
without an audit to be a violation of teachers' First Amendment rights.
It demands that such dues no longer be collected without an audit and
that past fees be returned. The lead plaintiff in the suit is Kim
Sheffield, an eighth-grade teacher at San Jose's Stonegate School. He
said he agreed to have his name on the complaint after being contacted
by the Right to Work Foundation.

Sheffield said he had objected in the past to the way that about $680 in
union dues were deducted from his paycheck. He said he had to go through
a time-consuming process of filling out firms to receive a rebate of
about $220 that represented the portion of his dues applied to the
union's political activities.

"The union is a political organization as far as I'm concerned,"
Sheffield said. "I want nothing to do with them." Specifically, he said
that most of the union's political expenditures "go to Democrats or
Democratic causes." Sheffield described himself as a conservative. He
said he is participating in the lawsuit because a sampling of about a
half-dozen locals conducted by the statewide union is not representative
of all school districts. "Every local is very different," Sheffield
said. "If they don't do an audited statement, you have to take it at
face value that what they're telling you is true."

The union local representing about 7,000 San Francisco teachers and
teachers' aides is one of the few that does conduct its own annual
audit, said Kent Mitchell, president of the group.

He said he does not know how his group's audit compares with the
sampling done by the California Teachers Association because it does not
use the same methodology. (The San Francisco Chronicle, March 7, 2000)


CARSON, INC : James, Hoyer Files Suit over Defective Hair Relaxer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A press release by the law firm of James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich,
P.A. says that on March 6, 2000, Alberta E. Richardson and Gloria Jean
Sanderson, residents of Hillsborough County, Florida, on behalf of a
class of thousands of consumers around the country, filed a suit against
Carson, Inc. (CIC) and Johnson Products Co., Inc. alleging that from
1996 through the present they manufactured and sold a hair relaxer
product which was and still is unreasonably dangerous and has caused
significant injury to members of the public. The hair straighteners were
marketed under the name Gentle Treatment and Gentle Treatment
Conditioning No-Lye Creme Relaxer for Grey Hair. According to the
complaint, Carson was aware that the product, even when used as
instructed, was causing caustic burning of the scalp and hair loss.
According to the Complaint, Carson failed to take any reasonable steps
to inform the public of the dangers associated with the use of their
product and failed to adequately warn the public that they might sustain
burns and experience hair loss as a result of using Gentle Treatment.
While Gentle Treatment is marketed as containing no lye, it does contain
very high levels of calcium hydroxide which causes the caustic burning
and hair loss.

The class action complaint was filed by Attorney John R. Newcomer, Jr.
of the Tampa, Florida law firm of James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich,
P.A.  Contact: John Newcomer of James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich,
P.A., 813-286-4100, or jnewcomer@jameshoyer.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Obtains Dismissal of 1997 Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE: CHK) announced that the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has dismissed
the securities litigation filed in late 1997 against Chesapeake and its
officers and directors and entered judgment in their favor. The
litigation, which originally consisted of 12 lawsuits but which was
consolidated into one purported class action in 1998, alleged the
company had made material misstatements or omissions of material facts
concerning its activities in the Louisiana Trend from January 25, 1996
through June 25, 1997. In dismissing the plaintiffs' amended complaint
on March 3, 2000, the Court found that throughout the alleged class
period, Chesapeake had disclosed to its investors the "precise risks"
associated with its investments and activities in the Louisiana Trend.
The court also determined that the plaintiffs had provided no factual
support for their allegations of misstatements or omissions by
Chesapeake.


CINAR CORPORATION: Founders Resign; More Irregularities Found
-------------------------------------------------------------
The husband-and-wife team who founded and co-ran the Cinar Corporation
resigned on March 7 after the discovery of more irregularities in the
financial affairs of the company, the leading Canadian producer of
children's filmed entertainment, including the popular television series
"Arthur" and "The Busy World of Richard Scarry."

In announcing the resignation of Micheline Charest as chairwoman and
co-chief executive and her husband, Ronald Weinberg, as president and
co-chief executive, the company said it had learned that $122 million of
its money had been invested without board approval. The company said $86
million of that money had been pledged to secure other investments.

Ms. Charest and Mr. Weinberg, who created Cinar 24 years ago and
together control 56 percent of its votes, will remain directors and
"retain leadership roles," the company said. Hasanain Panju, who was
Cinar's chief financial officer and a senior executive vice president,
was dismissed.

It was the second significant piece of news about possible financial
irregularities at the Montreal-based company in the last five months. In
October the company was the subject of media reports that suggested
Cinar had improperly received tax credits for scripts that were written
by Americans.

Cinar said it had not been able to determine the nature of the
unauthorized investments, or their value, but that it would be taking
steps to recover the money.

Because of the investigation that has been undertaken by the audit
committee, the company warned that it might not be able to deliver its
financial results for 1999 by mid-April, as had been previously
expected.

Trading in Cinar shares was halted all day in the Nasdaq stock market.
The shares closed at $18.375 on Friday, March 3, 39 percent off their
52-week high of $30.25 on Sept. 30.

Lawrence Yelin, a senior partner in the Montreal law firm of Fasken
Martineau DuMoulin and a member of Cinar's board, has been named
chairman. Barry Usher, who has worked for Canadian banks and insurance
companies, has become the president and he also joins the board.

Once a favorite entertainment investment, the shares of Cinar have
tumbled since accusations of tax cheating were first raised by Stephane
Bergeron, a member of the federal Parliament. Canadian films are given
tax credits for domestic content, like writing and performing. Cinar,
Mr. Bergeron said in the House of Commons, where he was protected from
any legal action by the company, had put the names of Canadians on
scripts that were written by Americans.

Cinar describes itself as an entertainment and education company,
producing nonviolent programming for children and families that is sold
in more than 150 countries. It has been growing fast. For the first nine
months of 1999, it reported a 51 percent increase in profit to 19.1
million Canadian dollars, or about $13.2 million, on revenue of 134
million Canadian dollars, or about $92.5 million, a 41 percent gain.

The allegation of tax fraud, which some people in the industry said
could result in repayments of about 10 million Canadian dollars, is
under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A second
accusation -- that Cinar stole the concept for one of its animated
series -- is under investigation by the Montreal city police.

The company is likely to face class-action suits by investors in both
the United States and Canada. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, a
leading class-action law firm with offices in New York, California and
Florida, said it intended to file a suit on behalf of American
shareholders. Support for a class action in Canada is being sought by a
well-known shareholder rights advocate, Yves Michaud of Montreal. (The
New York Times March 7, 2000)


COCA COLA: Asks Judge to Reprimand Attorneys in Racial Bias Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Days after plaintiffs' attorneys in a racial discrimination case asked a
federal judge to punish Coca-Cola for withholding documents, the company
wants the attorneys reprimanded for filing "frivolous" motions.

Lawyers for Coca-Cola responded on March 6 to plaintiffs' efforts to
obtain documents on the company's current restructuring, in which 6,000
jobs are being cut. The plaintiffs say they need the material to
determine whether African-Americans who could become members of a class
action are being unfairly targeted for layoffs.

But Coca-Cola says the plaintiffs' latest motion and other recent
"spurious pleadings" are simply maneuvers to undermine the legal process
and gain media attention. "Coca-Cola has persuasively demonstrated the
absurdity of plaintiffs' claims," the company says in its motion filed
in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. "Unfortunately, however, much of the
damage of what plaintiffs are trying to achieve occur when the spurious
pleadings are filed and simultaneously provided to the press. This is an
established pattern ... and will continue until the court makes it clear
it will not be tolerated," the motion says.

But plaintiffs' attorney Cyrus Mehri disagreed. "There are legitimate,
unanswered questions because of the company's ongoing shell game of
hiding the facts about the layoffs," Mehri said.

The company says the attorneys' latest tactic was to use the layoff of
former human resources benefits manager Larry Jones, an African-American
who has since held rallies against Coca-Cola, as a way to get material
on the restructuring.

In a Feb. 22 motion, the plaintiffs said Jones was included in the
layoffs after informing President Jack Stahl that he had held a meeting
with other black employees to discuss the signing of severance waivers.
By signing the releases, blacks were giving up their right to sue the
company in exchange for enhanced severance benefits. They would also
relinquish their right to be prospective members of a class action.

The plaintiffs' attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Richard Story to
order Coca-Cola to hand over documents on its corporate restructuring so
the attorneys could determine if African-Americans who have complained
about discrimination or the severance waivers were being retaliated
against with layoffs.

The plaintiffs also asked the judge to invalidate the company's
severance policy, which Coca-Cola did on its own last week.
African-Americans now can receive enhanced severance benefits and become
members of a class action.

Coca-Cola says the incident involving Jones was just the latest maneuver
by the plaintiffs to obtain company documents that so far have been
sanctioned as being off-limits. "Plaintiffs' counsel, defeated three
times in their effort to persuade the Court to provide discovery
regarding the (company's) realignment purportedly to use it in
challenging the (severance) releases, have now turned to Jones to
trumpet their cause to the media and other prospective class members."

While the plaintiffs contend that Jones, who held another rally
criticizing the company this past weekend at St. Philip A.M.E. Church in
Decatur, was terminated after informing Stahl of his actions, the
company says Jones had known since Jan. 26 that he was in a pool of
employees who could lose their jobs.

Coca-Cola also says the plaintiffs' attorneys are using Jones' meetings
with former and current black employees to lay the groundwork for
getting more African-Americans to join the suit, in violation of court
procedures.

Coca-Cola acknowledges the attorneys are allowed to speak with
prospective class members if black employees contact the attorneys
first. "Here, while plaintiffs' counsel may have been previously
contacted by some of the prospective class members in attendance at the
meeting, plaintiffs' counsel's participation in the meeting was a
communication with the prospective class not authorized" by the court.

Coca-Cola wants Story to order the plaintiffs to pay the attorneys' fees
and other costs it has had to incur to respond to the "frivolous" motion
and order the attorneys not to attend meetings with prospective class
members. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March 7, 2000)


CYBERSHOP.COM, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of CyberShop.com, Inc.(Nasdaq:CYSP) between October
26, 1999 and February 24, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint charges CyberShop 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
concerning the Company's business, earnings and prospects. As a result,
CyberShop's stock price was artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period. The complaint alleges that certain corporate insiders took
advantage of this run up in the Company's stock price to dump thousands
of their own shares and realize millions of dollars in proceeds from
their illicit insider trading.

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
CYSP@bernlieb.com


CYBERSHOP.COM: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against CyberShop.com (Nasdaq:CYSP) and its
senior executives was commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey seeking to recover damages on behalf of
defrauded investors who purchased CyberShop.com securities.

If you purchased CyberShop.com shares between October 26, 1999 and
February 24, 2000, please read this notice.

The complaint charges CyberShop.com and its senior executives with
violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the Company's
business and financial condition and failed to disclose material facts
concerning the integration of acquired properties and fundamental shifts
in the Company's business strategy.

Contact: Mark D. Smilow, 888/593-4771 or 212/682-3025, via Internet
electronic mail at wynyc@aol.com or by writing Weiss & Yourman, The
French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York City 10176.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Securities Suit Recoils; WLF Files Amicus Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) has filed an amicus curiae brief
supporting Cypress Semiconductor Corporation's appeal of the dismissal
of its malicious prosecution action against Weiss & Yourman for filing a
securities fraud suit against the company. Cypress won the securities
litigation at the summary judgment stage and asserts the law firm did
not have probable cause for filing the action in the first place.
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Yourman et al., No. H020322 (CA Ct. App.,
brief filed Jan. 12, 2000).

"The facts on which the Superior Court relied to find probable cause are
so commonplace in securities markets that the ruling, if upheld, would
create probable cause to file suit against innumerable corporations who
have committed no wrongdoing," according to the WLF.

Cypress designs and manufactures computer memory chips, logic chips, and
other high-performance integrated circuits. In the fourth quarter of
1991, Cypress' reported revenues of $71 million were in contrast with
its forecast of $76.1 million. This was, in part, attributed to reduced
orders for its products, including a lower than anticipated military
order from Westinghouse.

In February 1992, Weiss & Yourman filed its proposed class action
complaint, which said the company and its officials knew Cypress would
fail to achieve its projections, and Cypress' management had boasted
their forecasting process was "uncannily accurate." In addition, the
suit contended certain officers and directors had profited from insider
trading.

Although the action was amended and later consolidated with three
similar actions, the Northern District of California dismissed the
complaint for failing to satisfy the scienter pleading requirement.
Weiss & Yourman subsequently filed a second amended complaint, which
survived a motion to dismiss.

Cypress' motion for summary judgment was granted after extensive
discovery. The company contends it produced nearly one-half million
pages of documents for the litigation and expended millions of dollars
in legal fees and other wasted resources.

In its malicious prosecution action, Cypress argues Weiss & Yourman
filed the action only to coerce a settlement, which bore no relation to
the merits of the claim.

The Santa Clara County Superior Court ruled in Weiss & Yourman's favor.
Citing Hufstedler, Kaus & Ettinger v. Superior Court (CA Ct. App.,
1996), the court determined, "The issue of whether the action was
legally tenable when it commenced should be measured by the entire
record, and the attorney's knowledge is entirely irrelevant."

The court also said the operative pleading for its determination was the
second amended complaint, rather than the initial filing.

In its appeal, Cypress argues "legal tenability" depends on whether a
reasonable attorney would have initiated the lawsuit based on the facts
known when the suit was first brought. Cypress insists the court should
examine the facts known when the first complaint was filed, and find
that Weiss & Yourman lacked any reasonable basis to treat the forecasts
as fraudulent misrepresentations.

Citing Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (CA Sup. Ct., 1989), both
Cypress and the WLF argues the lower court's ruling was wrong as a
matter of law. Facts learned throughout the course of the proceedings
cannot be used to demonstrate probable cause to file the suit, the WLF
says.

The WLF also asserts passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
shows the public policy preference for reducing baseless securities
litigation. Adopting the superior court's permissive standard for legal
tenability would fail to deter the abuse, the organization argues, and
only encourage the filing of frivolous securities class actions.

The WLF is represented by in-house counsel Daniel J. Popeo, Jeffrey S.
Burk, and Richard A. Samp, and by Susan Liebeler of Malibu, CA. Cypress
is represented by C. Randall Bain, Joseph E. Mais, Craig W. Soland, and
Dan L. Bagatell of Brown & Bain in Phoenix. (Securities Litigation &
Regulation Reporter, February 9, 2000)


D.C. MENTAL: Agreement Ends '97 Court Receivership of Health System
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge had approved a plan to return control of the District's
long-troubled mental health system to the D.C. government, but he said
that a miracle turnaround is unlikely no matter who is in charge.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said that the system's difficulties
are deeply rooted and that change will come slowly. But he said District
officials and advocates for the mentally ill took "the correct step" in
signing an agreement in a class-action lawsuit to get the system out of
a court-ordered receivership no later than April 2001. He approved the
pact at a hearing where attorneys on both sides urged immediate action.

Hogan praised Mayor Anthony A. Williams for pushing to regain control of
the mental health system, which was put under receivership in 1997 amid
chronic complaints about inadequate services. The D.C. Commission on
Mental Health serves more than 9,000 mentally ill clients at St.
Elizabeths Hospital and several outpatient clinics.

The judge expressed hope that the Williams administration would also
work with the courts and advocates to regain control of the three other
agencies now in similar receiverships: corrections, public housing and
Child and Family Services. Hogan himself took the latter agency, which
handles foster care, out of D.C. hands.

The mental health agreement calls for the current receiver, psychiatrist
Scott Nelson, to be replaced by the end of the month with an interim
receiver. Nelson, appointed in November 1997, has been criticized by
advocates who contended that the system wound up in worse shape under
him than it was under the District. At a court hearing last fall, they
complained that the system didn't do enough to find housing, jobs and
the most effective medication for the mentally ill and homeless. Nelson,
who was in court on March 6, has said he made improvements despite
bureaucratic obstacles.

The interim receiver was selected during negotiations among the mayor's
staff, private providers, the commission and advocates. He is Dennis R.
Jones, a former mental health commissioner in Texas and Indiana, who has
done consulting work for the District.

The agreement calls for Jones to come up with a plan to shift control of
the system to the District between Jan. 1 and April 1, 2001. Then he
would remain on the job as a monitor during a six-month probationary
period, with the authority to ask the court to put the agency back into
receivership if the District doesn't make sufficient progress.

Attorneys on both sides said the ultimate goal is to put D.C. officials
in charge of a comprehensive system that provides the appropriate mix of
services to clients. Another result, they said, would be to address the
class-action lawsuit filed in 1974 by the Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law that demanded changes. The judge in that case, Aubrey E.
Robinson Jr., died Feb. 27. Hogan was asked to approve the consent
agreement because he has been assigned to hear emergency matters.

Peter J. Nickles, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Hogan at March
6's hearing that he hoped the agreement would generate change. He noted
that Jones will soon appoint an acting chief operating officer to run
the system on a day-to-day basis. Deputy Corporation Counsel Janet M.
Maher said the District likewise is eager to bring Jones on board,
saying that officials have "high confidence in his abilities."

Other advocates also expressed support, including Mary Ann Luby, of the
Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. "Maybe this indicates
urgency," she said of the agreement's tight time-frame. "There's a
phenomenal need for urgency."

Maureen Veech, a leader of the Mental Health Stakeholders Coalition,
agreed with the judge that Jones faces a difficult task, but she said
the change is necessary. "It is critical for the system to be
substantially fixed before it is returned to the District," she said.
(The Washington Post, March 7, 2000)


DUPONT: Suit over Procurement of Settlement Can Proceed Despite Waiver
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering a certified question from a federal district court in Florida,
the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that DuPont can be sued for
fraudulent procurement of a settlement, despite a provision in a
settlement agreement waiving future claims. Florida Evergreen Foliage v.
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., No. 205, 1999 (Del. Dec. 6, 1999). In
1994, the plaintiffs, who were represented by Stephen Cox of San
Francisco's Cox & Moyer, had settled with DuPont for $ 2.3 million, for
claims that the fungicide Benlate had damaged their plants. The
settlement agreement included a provision releasing DuPont "from any and
all causes of action,...damages and liability, whether known or unknown"
against it. In 1998, the plaintiffs filed a fraudulent-inducement suit
against DuPont, claiming that the company had fraudulently withheld
scientific data during discovery, thus inducing the plaintiffs to settle
for less than the fair value of their claims. DuPont, represented by A.
Stephen Clay of Atlanta's Kilpatrick & Cody, argued that the claim was
barred by the clause in the settlement agreement. The court found that,
under Delaware law, "a tort claimant fraudulently induced to execute a
release may opt either for recission or a separate suit for fraud."
(Product Liability Law & Strategy, February 2000)


DYNAMEX INC: Auditors Resign; Stock Exchange to Strike Co. from List
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex Inc. (AMEX:DDN), which is defending a securities lawsuit in
Texas as reported in the CAR, announced that Deloitte & Touche LLP has
resigned as the Company's independent auditors. Dynamex filed a Current
Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating
to the resignation. The Company is conducting a search for a new
independent auditor.

The Company also announced the receipt of a letter from The American
Stock Exchange confirming the Exchange's intention to proceed with the
filing of an application with the SEC to strike the Company's common
stock from listing and registration on the Exchange. The Company has not
complied with the Exchange's continued listing rules in that it has
failed to file its July 31, 1999 Form 10-K and its October 31, 1999 Form
10-Q as well as file amended Forms 10-K for fiscal 1997 and 1998. The
Company will appeal this decision, and the appeal will stay the
delisting until a final decision following the appeal hearing. It is
anticipated the appeal hearing will be held in the next 14 to 45 days.

Trading in the Company's common stock will remain halted during the
appeal process. In the event of an unfavorable appeal decision by the
Exchange or a withdrawal of the appeal, the Company will make all
reasonable efforts to have the common stock quoted on the National
Quotation Bureau's Electronic Quotation System known as the "EQS" or the
"Electronic Pink Sheets". Management can make no assurance with respect
to the quotation, timing of quotation, trading or date of trading in the
Company's common stock.

The Company is in violation of certain financial reporting covenants
under its bank credit agreement and may be in violation of other
financial covenants and certain terms and conditions. The bank group
approved a waiver in early February 2000 permitting the increase in a
letter of credit related to insurance. The Company will continue to work
with its banks to achieve any necessary forbearance, waivers or
amendments. However, there is no assurance that such forbearance,
waivers or amendments will be achieved.


FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Lawsuit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. Announces that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of Focus
Enhancements, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCSE) common stock between April 29, 1999,
and March 1, 2000, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Focus Enhancements and certain of its executive
officers with violations of the federal securities laws, including
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued to
the investing public false and misleading financial statements for
fiscal year 1999. On March 1, 2000, the Company announced that its
independent auditors had informed the Company's board of directors that
it had discovered certain irregularities relating to the Company's
financial controls for fiscal 1999 and prior quarters. The Company's
board of directors 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: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. 320 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 Fax:
(212) 983-9331 e-mail at FaruqiLawAV@aol.com


FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announced that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Focus Enhancements, Inc. (Nasdaq: FCSE) from April 29, 1999 through
March 1, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Focus Enhancements and certain of its officers and
directors with improperly reporting the Company's financial results,
including revenues and income, in its public filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission as well as in its press releases throughout
fiscal 1999.

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


HMOs: CA Suit Names 5 Medicare Providers for Failure to Cover Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A San Mateo County woman on Medicare sued her HMO and four others on
March 6 alleging they lured her and thousands of elderly Californians to
sign up for plans, then left them without health insurance when the
Medicare business proved less profitable than projected.

The lawsuit maintains that the five health-maintenance organizations
recruited senior citizens to their Medicare business, then dropped their
coverage in certain parts of California, including San Mateo and Santa
Clara counties, when Congress capped the rate of Medicare reimbursement.

As the HMOs were telling Washington that they were being priced out of
the Medicare market, they continued to aggressively advertise to seniors
and sign up increasing numbers for new policies, according to the suit
filed by the Burlingame firm of Cotchett, Pitre and Simon.

"These Medicare HMO providers chose their own selfish concerns over
those of seniors by pulling out," said attorney Bruce Simon. "That was
in response to the government deciding they were being reimbursed too
much."

Some 14,000 elderly residents of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties lost
their coverage on Jan. 1, 1999, the result of a coordinated effort to
exclude certain locations, he said.

Yvonne Green of Foster City subscribed to a health plan offered by Aetna
U.S. Healthcare to Medicare patients for services not covered under the
regular Medicare program. When Aetna canceled her policy, she was forced
to subscribe to a more expensive plan offered by Healthnet, the only
remaining Medicare HMO in San Mateo County, Simon said. Her disabled
husband was left without long-term coverage and has spent seven months
in a veterans hospital.

The suit names Aetna, Cigna Corp., Lifeguard Inc., Prudential Healthcare
Group Inc. and United Health Care Corp. Simon said he will seek
class-action status on behalf of all California Medicare clients who
lost their coverage.

An insurance industry representative responded that HMOs pulled out of
Medicare only when the government made it economically impossible.
"Medicare is a potentially huge business for HMOs. In some ways, it's
the last great untapped marketplace. No HMO in Medicare wants to leave,"
said Walter Zelman, president of the California Association of Health
Plans. "The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, in an effort to reduce overall
health care costs, reduced the payments to health plans far below what
plans had anticipated when they committed to Medicare in years prior."

The suit accuses HMO providers of violations of the California business
and professions code, fraud, negligent misrepresentations and unlawful
advertising practices. It seeks damages associated with the costs to
senior citizens as a result of the "illegal denial of Medicare HMO
services." (San Jose Mercury News, March 7, 2000)


JDN REALTY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Lawsuit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
(http://www.pomerantzlaw.com)has filed a class action suit against JDN
Realty Corporation (NYSE:JDN) and several of the Company's senior
executives. The case was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all those who purchased
the common stock of JDN during the period between February 15, 1997 and
February 14, 2000, inclusive.

According to the complaint, JDN expects to restate the Company's
financial statements for the period 1994 through 1998, and reduce net
income and funds from operations for those periods, due to compensation
and other amounts being accounted for as an expense for each of the
years incurred as a result of millions of dollars of undisclosed
compensation that two JDN executives had received from sellers in
connection with many of JDN's real estate development projects.

On February 14, 2000, JDN announced that two of the Company's executives
had received undisclosed compensation and several of the Company's high
ranking executives resigned, including J. Donald Nichols who resigned as
Chief Executive of the Company. The market reaction to the news was
swift; the price of JDN's common stock dropped half of its value.

Contact: Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Andrew G. Tolan,
Esq., 888/476-6529 (888/4-POMLAW) agtolan@pomlaw.com


JONES APPAREL: Resolves Allegations Concerning Nine West Shoes Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Apparel Group, Inc. (NYSE: JNY) and its subsidiary, Nine West
Group Inc., have entered into Settlement Agreements with the Attorneys
General of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam,
and with the Federal Trade Commission, resolving allegations that Nine
West Group engaged in violations of the antitrust laws by coercing
retailers to adhere to resale prices of its products. Both agreements
are without any admission of liability on the part of Nine West Group.

The agreement with the States resolves ongoing investigations and a
parens patriae action brought on behalf of consumers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York in White
Plains. Specifically, the settlement consists of injunctive relief in
the form of a Consent Decree which specifies the manner in which Nine
West Group may implement its resale pricing policies with its retail
customers, along with a payment of $ 34 million that will be used to
benefit consumers of Nine West Group shoes. The settlement requires
Court approval and, if approved by the Court, will effectively resolve
the pending federal and state class actions that cover the same claims.

In a separate settlement, Nine West Group has agreed to a Consent Order
with the staff of the Federal Trade Commission which also specifies the
manner in which Nine West may implement its resale pricing policies with
its retail customers. This Consent Order, which resolves the FTC's
investigation, is subject to final approval of the Federal Trade
Commission after a 30-day comment period.


RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in PA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on behalf of
its client, on March 6, 2000, filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Ravisent Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq:RVST) during the period between July 15, 1999 and February 17,
2000, inclusive.

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

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

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following: 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


RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Ravisent Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: RVST) from July 15, 1999 through
February 17, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Ravisent and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
revenue recognition policy, revenues and income.

Contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Bala Cynwyd Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
888/299-7706 (toll free) or 610/667-7706 e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT's Broughton Presents Robust Set of Figures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman of British American Tobacco Martin Broughton presented on March
7 a robust set of full-year figures and revealed the integration of
Rothmans was proceeding at a faster pace than first forecast. Andrew
Darke of Williams de Broe explained: "While the charge for Rothmans was
much greater than I expected, the company gave us a good sign it will
integrate Rothmans a lot quicker than indicated at the time of the
merger."

The "bombed-out" BAT share price was the main source of frustration for
Broughton. From a high of 657 pence in January last year, the stock has
more than halved in value as the weight of U.S. litigation, and the fad
for IT and telecoms turned investor sentiment against the shares. At the
close, BAT was down another 13-1/2 pence, at 261 pence, giving it a
price earnings multiple of just five times prospective net profits.

Broughton admits he is probably not the only boss of a FTSE 100 firm
concerned about how the market values so-called "bricks and mortar
companies" and the current investment fads. "It is really quite
remarkable how people's view of valuing a business has changed in the
space of just one year," he told journalists at the post-results
press-conference.

Worrying many BAT shareholders is the Engle class action being brought
by around 500,000 sick smokers. The Florida court case is in the jury
phase and when it concludes in around three weeks time could yield a
"mega-verdict" totalling up 200 bln usd of punitive damages.

Broughton, while he has not totally given up on a favourable verdict,
believes the company's U.S. unit Brown & Williamson and the other
plaintiffs will overturn any adverse ruling on appeal. "We have many
appealable issues and they are creeping up by the minute," he said.

Indeed, the chairman was keen to put a positive gloss on American legal
wrangles. He said in the course of 1999, 254 cases had been dismissed,
and only 113 new ones brought. That still leaves a total of 678 on the
books.

Broughton is, however, being philosophical about the problem as he said.
" Litigation is a cost of business in the U.S.," he said. (AFX.COM,
March 7, 2000)


VISX INC: Shepherd & Geller Files Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Shepherd & Geller, LLC announced that it has filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all individuals and institutional
investors that purchased VISX Inc. (Nasdaq:VISX) common stock between
March 1, 1999 and February 22, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements about revenues from the Company's Excimer Laser
systems, the strong procedure and equipment royalties VISX was earning,
the limited impact of competition which would allow the Company to
maintain its licensing fees, and the Company's continued market share
domination. As a result of the misleading statements, the Company's
stock was artificially inflated during the class period. Prior to
disclosing the truth about the Company, certain insiders took advantage
of the inflated stock price by selling more than $97 million worth of
stock to the unsuspecting public. When the truth about the Company was
revealed, the stock price fell significantly.

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