/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000313.MBX                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Monday, March 13, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 50


ALLIEDSIGNAL: Class Status Not Sought in LA Suit over Chemical Leak
AOL: CO Suit Claims 5.0 Changes Computer Systems & Precludes Other ISPs
BASSETT FURNITURE: '97 CA Suit Re Product Specifications Still Pending
BLOOD VICTIMS: Crawford to Administer Canadian Hep. C Compensation Fund
BMC SOFTWARE: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Texas

CINAR CRP: Canadian Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit in Montreal
CINAR CORP: Trading Halted As OSC Reviews; Market Waits for Statement
COCA COLA: New Chairman Pledges His Own Benefits with Diversity
COMMERCIAL ASSETS: Amends Merger with AIC As Part of Settlement
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Lawyers Accused of Frivolity Sue over Defamation

DELL COMPUTER: Recalls Notebooks for Suspected Defective Memory Chips
FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in MA
INFORMATION ARCHITECTS: Argument for Securities Suit in NC in Mar. 2000
LANDRYS SEAFOOD: Plans Vigorous Defense against Securities Suit in TX
MCROSOFT CORP: MN Suit Accuses of Price-Fixing and Restraint of Trade

FOINT WEST: Resolves CA Securities Suit against Former Dignity Partners
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Suit in Ohio
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Retirees Concerned with Stock Fall File Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Ohio
RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in PA

RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suits in CO Have Been Consolidated
SAFETY KLEEN: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in SC
SMITH A O: Settlement for '99 MI Suit Re Water Heaters to Be Finalised
SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: DCR Lowers Ratings of Notes & Bank Credit Facility
TEXACO AFFILIATE: Fd Ct Certifies Class for Race Discrimination Lawsuit

VISX INC: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Suit in California
VISX, INC.: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Securities Complaint


ALLIEDSIGNAL: Class Status Not Sought in LA Suit over Chemical Leak
More than 700 north Baton Rouge residents are seeking damages as a
result of a hydrogen chloride leak last year at a Lupine Avenue plant.
Two multiple-plaintiff lawsuits were filed against AlliedSignal. The
suits do not seek class action status. The plaintiffs say they
encountered medical costs, property damage, cleaning expenses and fear
when hydrogen chloride leaked from the plant on March 2, 1999. Each
resident is seeking less than $75,000, the suits say.

Both lawsuits allege AlliedSignal and other defendants acted
negligently. The other defendants include the manufacturer and installer
of a generator that allegedly failed to start at the plant the night of
the leak. "We have five defendants," said attorney Walter Dumas, who
filed one of the suits. "All of them had a little bit to do (with the
leak)." Attorney Andre LaPlace, who filed the other suit, said most of
his plaintiffs own property near the plant.

Plant officials have said the leak happened after a power failure during
a thunderstorm. Fire Department Hazardous Materials Unit officers saw
what might have been a vapor cloud or haze on Chippewa Street and
alerted area residents. When hydrogen chloride mixes with moisture in
the air, it forms a weak form of hydrochloric acid. The rain helped
clear the gas from the air. Plant officials have said they did not see
evidence of an off-site impact. Fire Department personnel did not detect
any hydrogen chloride gas outside the plant site and did not enter the
site. (The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA.), March 2, 2000)

AOL: CO Suit Claims 5.0 Changes Computer Systems & Precludes Other ISPs
America Online (NYSE:AOL), the world's largest Internet service
provider, is again the target of a class-action lawsuit for its latest
version AOL 5.O, claiming the company's latest version causes damage to
users' computers. AOL was hit with a new class-action lawsuit filed
March 9 in Colorado, citing a recently enacted federal law designed to
safeguard online communications.

The proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Denver,
Colorado, claims that AOL violated federal electronic communications law
by releasing software that, without adequate warning, made major
configuration changes to users' computers. The lawsuit contends that AOL
failed to inform AOL 5.0 users that the program would make dramatic
changes to their computers' operating systems and would interfere with
their ability to connect to the competing ISP networks.

Seattle attorney Steve Berman, known for his national expertise in
class-action lawsuits, filed the lawsuit on behalf of all Colorado
residents using AOL 5.0 under the Stored Wire and Electronic
Communications and Transactional Records Access Act. The recently
enacted law prohibits illegal altering, modifying or reconfiguring
electronic communications files.

The lawsuit was brought by EZ Bookings Inc., a Steamboat Springs,
Colorado, company. According to the complaint, Xavier N. Reyna,
president of EZ Bookings and a professional computer consultant, spent
more than 20 hours unraveling and fixing files corrupted by installing
AOL 5.O on his firm's computer.

"My client dug in and began looking at what AOL did to his system and
was floored," attorney Berman said. "He discovered that AOL 5.0 went in
and changed the Windows registry, which is the most complex segment of
the operating system the DNA of the machine." "To think that AOL's
software -- without warning or permission -- put its corporate
thumb-print right in the middle of the registry is unbelievable," he

According to Berman, AOL 5.0 is a brazen attempt to force consumers to
use AOL. "Once the software is up and running, it changes so many of the
system's configurations, the average user has no hope of connecting with
anyone else other than AOL," said Berman. "Many who have tried to unwind
the installation found that it is almost impossible since AOL 5.O
affects more than 2000 files. This activity in our view is unlawful."

The class, if approved, would represent all AOL users in Colorado who
subscribe to the service and installed AOL 5.0. According to Berman, the
exact number of people affected by this is yet unknown, but could number
in the tens of thousands.

Contact: Hagens Berman Steve Berman, 206/623-7292
steve@hagens-berman.com or Media Only - Firmani & Assoc. Mark Firmani,
206/443-9357 mark@firmani.com

BASSETT FURNITURE: '97 CA Suit Re Product Specifications Still Pending
A suit was filed in June, 1997, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles against Bassett Furniture
Industries Inc., two major retailers and certain current and former
employees of the Company. The suit sought certification of a class
consisting of all consumers who purchased certain mattresses and box
springs from the major retailers which were manufactured by a subsidiary
of the Company, E.B. Malone Corporation, with allegedly different
specifications than those originally manufactured for sale by these
retailers. The suit alleged various causes of action, including
negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, violations of deceptive
practices laws and fraud. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages of $100
million and punitive damages.

In 1997, the Superior Court twice sustained the Company's demurrers to
several of plaintiffs' causes of action, but granted the plaintiffs
leave to amend. In 1998, the Superior Court dismissed the class action
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and transferred the entire
class action out of the class action department. The Court also
dismissed many of the individual claims. Plaintiffs then filed a notice
of appeal from the class action ruling. Plaintiffs also filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus or other extraordinary relief, which was denied.
The suit was subsequently transferred from the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles to the Superior Court for Orange County. After the
case was transferred to Orange County, the plaintiffs stipulated to a
dismissal with prejudice of all individual defendants. Additionally, all
remaining claims against the Company were stayed by the Orange County
Court pending Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their class action
allegations. The parties have recently briefed the issues on appeal, but
no hearing date has been set by the appellate court.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this suit, because it
believes that the damages sought are unjustified and because this case
is inappropriate for class action treatment. Because the Company
believes that the two major retailers were unaware of the alleged
changes in specifications, the Company has agreed to indemnify the two
major retailers with respect to the above.

BLOOD VICTIMS: Crawford to Administer Canadian Hep. C Compensation Fund
Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. has been appointed to administer the
Compensation Fund set up for the individuals infected in Canada with the
hepatitis C virus (HCV), between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990,
through a blood transfusion or the use of blood or certain blood
products. The amount of the Compensation Fund is $1.2 billion.

The decision was made public by the Honourable Justice Nicole Morneau of
the Superior Court of Quebec. Her counterparts from the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, the Honourable Justice Warren Winkler, and the Supreme
Court of British Columbia, the Honourable Justice Kenneth J. Smith,
contributed to this decision. The Court indicated that it had selected
Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. because it had demonstrated its capacity
to process an important number of complex claims in both official
languages of Canada. The Court also pointed out that Crawford Expertises
Canada Inc., with its 85 offices, would be able to ensure a presence
across Canada.

Following the Court's decision, Navigant Consulting Inc./Peterson
Worldwide LLC, which had been working on this program, will transfer all
documents and activities to Crawford Expertises Canada Inc.  "We are
very pleased with the Court's decision. We believe that Crawford
Expertises Canada Inc. will be in a position to deliver the services
that the victims expect and deserve. Every effort will be made to ensure
that claim forms are sent out as soon as possible'', said Mr. Michel
Savonitto, co-counsel for the class actions for Quebec's transfused

                        Role of the Administrator

The appointment of an Administrator was part of the Settlement Agreement
concluded on June 15, 1999 between the federal, provincial and
territorial governments, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the
class actions representatives for individuals infected with HCV through
a blood transfusion or the use of blood or certain blood products
between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990.

The responsibilities of the Administrator will be to receive, process
and evaluate applications from claimants, make decisions concerning
these claims and to administer payments accordingly. The Administrator's
mandate also involves assisting claimants in filling out the required
forms, thereby sparing them from seeking the services of lawyers to
complete the required documents. Public notices will soon be published
in newspapers to inform all individuals with regard to the details of
the compensation program. A website http://www.hepc8690.com- has been
created for the benefit of the individuals concerned and a toll-free
information line - 1 888 726-2656 - has been set up to answer their

                         Details of the Agreement

The class actions Settlement Agreement for the 1986-1990 period
concluded with the federal, provincial and territorial governments
requires them to pay a total sum of $1.2 billion, including interest
from April 1, 1998, to individuals directly or indirectly infected by
HCV, as well as to a group of persons indirectly infected with the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (spouses, partners, children) who were not
compensated by previous programs.

As soon as Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. is ready to provide a
timetable for the start-up of the compensation program, a follow-up with
the media will be made to inform them of the next steps.

BMC SOFTWARE: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Texas
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of BMC Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:BMCS) common
stock during the period between July 29, 1999 and Jan. 4, 2000.

The complaint charges BMC 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 strong sales of
BMC's existing software products, the successful integration of its
acquisitions of Boole & Babbage and New Dimension Software earlier in
1999, strong demand for its mainframe MIPS software, notwithstanding a
slowdown in sales of IBM mainframe computers, and the lack of customer
deferrals of orders or purchases due to Y2K concerns, which would result
in 25%-30% EPS growth for BMC during F00-F01 and 3rd and 4thQ F00 EPS of
$.52-$.55 and $.58-$.64, respectively, artificially inflated its stock
to a Class Period high of $86-5/8 on Jan. 3, 2000. During the Class
Period, BMC insiders and controlling shareholders sold 1,085,015 shares
of their BMC stock at as high as $78.83 for $63.1 million in proceeds.

On Jan. 5, 2000, just two days after BMC's stock hit its all-time high,
BMC revealed that, due to problems integrating the BMC, Boole & Babbage
and New Dimension sales forces, sales execution procedures in Europe and
the U.S., and weakness in demand for mainframe MIPS software products,
its 3rdQ F00 results would be much worse than earlier forecast. BMC's
stock fell from $85-1/8 on Jan. 4, 2000 to $47, an almost 50% drop in
one day, and when BMC reported 3rdQ F00 EPS of just $.41, a decline from
its 2ndQ F00 EPS and its year-earlier 3rdQ F99 EPS, its stock continued
to fall to just $36.

For any questions about this notice or the action, please contact one of
the following attorneys: Julie Goldsmith (jgoldsmith@cmht.com) or
Clarence D. Williams (cwilliams@cmht.com) of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C., 999 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. PH.:
888/240-1238 or 206/521-0080.

CINAR CORP: Canadian Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit in Montreal
A group of Canadian shareholders has filed a request for a class action
against Cinar in the latest blow to the reputation of the Montreal
producer of children's programs such as Arthur. The suit, filed in
Montreal late March 8 -- the same time as a similar suit was filed in
New York -- alleges investors paid more for their stock than they should
have because executives falsely inflated the value of the company and
tried to play down the effects of fraud allegations against it. The
action requires the approval of Quebec Superior Court to proceed.

"The reason that people are so angry is that our whole system of public
investment is based on trust that insiders will not use information that
is confidential and which outsiders who are not in the know cannot use,"
lawyer Paul Unterberg said, referring to petitioners.

Preparation for the Montreal suit began well before the eventful week,
when the stock collapsed the day after Cinar's top two executives quit
and the chief financial officer was fired over alleged investment

The suit was filed on behalf of a non-profit shareholder activist group,
founded by Yves Michaud, who is known for crusading against the
country's banking executives on behalf of minority shareholders. (The
Ottawa Sun, March 10, 2000)

CINAR CORP: Trading Halted As OSC Reviews; Market Waits for Statement
The Ontario Securities Commission has been called in to review Cinar
Corp., the Montreal animation firm that recently discovered $122-million
(US) of unauthorized investments, according to the Financial Post. The
provincial regulator was contacted after the Montreal company announced
that the money it had earmarked for acquisitions had been invested
without the approval of its board of directors, according to a source
which the report does not specify.

Trading in the firm's stock was halted all day on March 9, the Financial
Post says, as investors waited for further news, which according to a
spokeswoman is related to the continuing internal audit and includes, in
part, information on the 'tax credit issue.' The spokeswoman said
officials at the Toronto Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, where Cinar stock
trades, have requested more information on the corporate developments.

The audit, being conducted by Cinar's auditors, Ernst & Young, was
launched last fall after allegations surfaced that Cinar had filed
fraudulent tax claims by passing off American scripts as the work of
Canadian writers, as pointed out in the Financial Post report. The
company, which is now in talks with the federal government's Canada
Customs & Revenue Agency on a settlement, says it can account for only
$35-million (US) of the total sum and the maximum it could lose is
roughly the remaining $86-million (US), according to the Financial Post.

Cinar's stock closed at $10.35 on March 9 -- more than a 75% drop from
its high of about $44 last fall, when the trouble began for the company
well known for such children's programming as Arthur and The Busy World
of Richard Scarry, the report mentions. The stock started falling after
the tax credit allegations were raised in the House of Commons in
October, and plummeted to as low as $8.15 on March 8, the day after it
was halted on the company's news of money being improperly invested,
says the Financial Post.

As has been reported in the CAR, the company's co-founders, the
husband-and-wife team of Ronald Weinberg and Micheline Charest, have
resigned from their positions as co-chief executives and Hasanain Panju,
but will remain on the board. The senior executive vice-president, was
fired for making the investments, the Financial Post says. Mr. Panju,
who was Cinar's chief financial officer until April last year, has
released a statement saying he 'diligently followed the instructions of
[Cinar's] founders,' according to the report.

Denis Dube, spokesman for the Quebec Securities Commission, said while
officials don't have a formal investigation of Cinar underway, they are
collecting information and analyzing whether or not there has been any
violation of securities law, according to the Financial Post. Mr. Dube
said the Quebec securities regulator began the review following
heightened media coverage late last year in connection with Cinar's use
of federal tax credits for film production, according to the report. He
said the commission will also not necessarily acknowledge if it upgrades
its review to the status of inquiry, a process through which it can
assume extraordinary powers to search for documents or call witnesses.
(National Post (formerly The Financial Post), March 10, 2000)

COCA COLA: New Chairman Pledges His Own Benefits with Diversity
Coca-Cola's new chairman and chief executive told employees that he will
be linking his success and compensation --- as well as his managers' ---
to meeting soon-to-be-established diversity goals. "What gets measured
gets done, and for that reason there will be a series of (diversity)
goals, objectives and targets established over the next few months,"
Daft said in an e-mail memo to all employees. "Everyone in the
organization will be held accountable for meeting them. My own success
and compensation will be tied to these diversity goals, and the same
will be true throughout the management ranks."

Daft is making diversity a "top priority" and said he is creating a new
position of vice president and director of diversity strategies, who
will report directly to him.

March 9's e-mail to employees was Daft's second one on diversity within
the week. Two days before that he told them the company was "working
toward an expedient and equitable resolution" of the racial
discrimination suit filed against Coca- Cola, which seeks class-action
status. The moves came after the meeting and rally by African-American
employees and their supporters, who said they would pressure the company
to treat black employees fairly.

Plaintiffs' attorney Cyrus Mehri praised Daft's move to link executive
compensation to diversity. "This is a major victory for plaintiffs in
the class who have been seeking these kinds of reforms for nearly a
year," Mehri said. "This is the first step towards moving Coca-Cola from
a laggard to a leader on diversity."

While the practice of linking executive compensation to diversity goals
has been growing among big companies, executive compensation experts
said, most firms --- big and small --- still do not do it. "Companies
are paying more attention to diversity and other nonfinancial measures
in determining executive compensation," said Sanford Godwin, an
executive compensation expert for the William M. Mercer human resources
consulting firm. "But still a significant majority of companies do not
directly link executive pay to measures such as diversity."

In a 1998 survey, the Society for Human Resource Management found that
58 percent of the participants from Fortune 500 companies did not link
compensation and performance to diversity goals. At smaller firms, 79
percent did not tie such goals to compensation and performance. "It's
been one of the points of contention in promoting diversity for a long
time," said Tim Mulvaney, president of Mulvaney Group, a New York-based
diversity and leadership consulting firm. "If you want to know what
people are spending their energies on, you can look at two things ---
what they get paid for and what their boss is asking them about."

Daft told employees the company must have an organizational structure
that supports its diversity goals. In the near future, he said, he will
be appointing the new diversity director, who will work with top company
executives "to build new initiatives to move the company to the head of
the class in leading and managing diversity."

Mehri, the plaintiffs' attorney, expects Daft to announce other
diversity initiatives in the coming weeks as both sides prepare to begin
settlement talks on the lawsuit. "We will examine each reform closely
and seek to make necessary improvements so that the reforms have staying
power," Mehri said.

The federal suit, filed by eight current and former employees, alleges
that the company has discriminated against African-Americans in pay,
promotions and performance evaluations. The plaintiffs are seeking to
represent a class of about 2,000 black salaried employees in the United
States. The company has denied the suit's allegations and opposed the
plaintiffs' attempt to make it a class-action case. (The Atlanta Journal
and Constitution, March 10, 2000)

COMMERCIAL ASSETS: Amend Merger with AIC As Part of Settlement Pact
Asset Investors Corporation (NYSE: AIC) and Commercial Assets, Inc.
(Amex: CAX) jointly announced that they have amended the terms of their
merger to provide CAX stockholders the option of receiving either (i)
0.4075 shares of AIC common stock for each share of CAX common stock; or
(ii) $ 5.75 cash for each share of CAX common stock. The cash option is
limited to 3,549,868 shares of CAX common stock, or $20.4 million cash.
If holders of more than 3,549,868 shares of CAX common stock elect to
receive cash, CAX stockholders electing to receive cash will receive
their pro rata share of the $ 20.4 million and will receive 0.4075 share
of AIC common stock for each of their remaining CAX shares. AIC and the
officers and directors of AIC and CAX have agreed to not elect to
receive cash for the 3,298,294 CAX shares that they own. CAX has
10,368,029 shares of common stock outstanding. The cash will be paid
from the companies' existing cash resources.

In addition, the merger agreement has been amended to increase the
required vote for approval from a majority to 2/3 of CAX's outstanding
shares. Previously, the agreement required the approval of a majority of
CAX's outstanding shares. The requirement that a majority of AIC's
outstanding shares approve the merger has not been changed.

The amended terms were agreed upon in conjunction with an agreement in
principle relating to a settlement of a class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of CAX stockholders. The settlement also provides for the payment
of up to $ 600,000 in attorney's fees to plaintiffs' counsel. The
settlement is contingent upon the approval by a Delaware court and the
merger is contingent, among other things, upon the court's approval of
the settlement.

AIC and CAX are affiliated real estate investment trusts (REITs) that
hold interests in manufactured home communities. AIC manages and owns
27% of CAX and owns 21 manufactured home communities and two
recreational vehicle parks. CAX owns 12 manufactured home communities
and owns 2% of AIC. As CAX's manager, AIC personnel perform all of CAX's
daily activities and the companies have the same officers. The combined
company will own 6,360 developed homesites and 3,880 expansion sites,
primarily in Florida and Arizona.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Lawyers Accused of Frivolity Sue over Defamation
In response to a suit filed by DaimlerChrysler Corp. alleging that the
Philadelphia law firm of Greitzer & Locks (G&L) violated state law by
filing "frivolous" class actions on allegedly unsafe car seats, the firm
has countersued the automaker for defamation and interference with
prospective contractual relationships. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Askinazi
et al. , No. 99-CV-5581 (ED PA, complaint filed Nov. 10, 1999).

In addition to G&L, Chrysler sued attorney William Askinazi of Maryland
and Brian Lipscomb, the named plaintiff in a 1999 class action against
the automaker.

G&L maintains that the statements of Chrysler and Associate General
Counsel Lewis H. Goldfarb demonstrate their intention of preventing
prospective litigants from signing on with the firm. Indeed, the firm
notes, it has already lost prospective business because of the Chrysler

In a Nov. 11, 1999, article in The Wall Street Journal , Goldfarb was
quoted on his hopes that the suit would "discourage prospective
litigants from signing on" to the pending class actions.

G&L also contends that the published statements of Chrysler and Goldfarb
were "defamatory in character" in that they disparage the manner in
which the firm conducts its practice of law. These statements referred
to "unwarranted and baseless cases," "legalized blackmail" and class
actions as a "rigged lottery."

The Lipscomb case cited by Chrysler was filed in Pennsylvania state
court in June 1999, and alleged that the single-lever seat release
mechanism on 1994 Dodge Neons and 1996 Dodge Intrepids was dangerous and
defective. Chrysler argued that the plaintiffs failed to investigate
their claims that: --

The Intrepid seats had a single recliner mechanism with "teeth of
minimal depth and width";

  -- The Neon seats were the same as the Intrepid seats; and
  -- Chrysler engaged in a conspiracy with Ford, General Motors, and
     Saturn with respect to the allegedly defective seats.

Chrysler contends the claims are false and the "Lawyer Defendants would
have known this if they had made even a minimal investigation." Lipscomb
was eventually dismissed with prejudice after the automaker illustrated
that the plaintiff had never owned a Chrysler vehicle.

Chrysler seeks actual and punitive damages under the Dragonetti Act,
which makes attorneys and their clients accountable for frivolous
lawsuits filed in a grossly negligent manner, without probable cause,
and/or for improper purposes.

G&L is represented by John H. Lewis Jr. and David D. Langfitt of
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Philadelphia. Chrysler is
represented by Charles A. Newman and Kathy A. Wisniewski of Bryan Cave
in St. Louis, and by Abraham C. Reich and Theodore H. Jobes of Fox,
Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel in Philadelphia.

DELL COMPUTER: Recalls Notebooks for Suspected Defective Memory Chips
Dell Computer Corp. is warning as many as 400,000 notebook computer
customers that their machines may contain defective memory chips. It
sent a letter to customers who purchased the Latitude and Inspiron
notebooks shipped between Feb. 1 and Nov. 20, 1999, saying some
computers may freeze following system failures, causing a loss or
corruption of data.

Affected models include the Latitude CPiA, CPiR, CPt, CPx and CS and
Inspiron 3500, 3700, 7000 and 7500. A test can be downloaded at
s/en/memory--test. |http://support.dell.com/us/en/memory--test.

FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in MA
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on March 9,
2000, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Focus Enhancements, Inc. (Nasdaq:FCSE) during the period between
April 29, 1999 and March 1, 2000, inclusive.

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.

For questions about this notice or the action, 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

INFORMATION ARCHITECTS: Argument for Securities Suit in NC in Mar. 2000
Information Architects Corp. discloses in its filing with the SEC that
between May 14, 1999 and July 13, 1999, the Company and its current and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in four purported
class action lawsuits. The suits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The suits
purport to be brought on behalf of a class of persons that purchased the
Company's common stock between November 14, 1997 and April 1, 1999 and
allege violations of the federal securities laws. The suits seek class
action status and an unspecified amount of damages, including
compensatory damages, interest, attorney's and expert's fees and
reasonable costs and expenses.

Specifically, the suits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiffs'
group and lead plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed by the court. On
September 17, 1999, a consolidated and amended class action complaint
was filed. On November 23, 1999, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated and amended class action complaint. The motion
to dismiss has been fully briefed and oral argument is currently
scheduled for March 20, 2000. Defendants deny any wrongdoing and intend
to vigorously defend themselves.

LANDRYS SEAFOOD: Plans Vigorous Defense against Securities Suit in TX
Class action lawsuits were filed in June and July of 1999 against
Landrys Seafood Restaurants Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. These actions name the
Company, all of its current executive officers and directors, E.A. "Al"
Jaksa, Jr. (a former executive officer and director) and underwriters
that participated in the Company's offering of Common Stock in March
1998. Such lawsuits allege that the defendants violated Federal
securities laws during certain periods while individually selling the
Company's common stock. The plaintiffs in these actions seek unspecified
monetary damages. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time, the Company believes these claims are without
merit and intends to defend these claims vigorously.

MICROSOFT CORP: MN Suit Accuses of Price-Fixing and Restraint of Trade
A consumer class action filed in state court under the Minnesota
Antitrust Act has charged software giant Microsoft Corp. with
monopolization in order to fix prices and restrain trade in the
operating systems market. It also alleges Microsoft engaged in contracts
in unreasonable restraint of trade to suppress and restrain trade and
innovation in the market for Internet browsers or other application
programming interfaces. Rubbright Group et al. v. Microsoft Corp., No.
99-CV-2017 (MN Dist. Ct., Dec. 6, 1999).

The complaint states that Microsoft, the world's largest manufacturer of
computer operating systems such as Windows, has a monopoly in this
business that has stifled competition and caused monopoly pricing.
Plaintiffs say Microsoft's monopoly power in the market for personal
computer (PC) operating systems derives from the fact that Windows is
used in over 80 percent of Intel-based PCs, which are the most popular
computers in use in the United States.

More than 90 percent of new Intel-based PCs are shipped with a version
of Windows pre-installed, plaintiffs assert. PC manufacturers (also
known also original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs) have no
commercially viable alternative to Windows for the PCs they distribute,
according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs allege there are high barriers to entry in the market for PC
operating systems. To protect its valuable Windows monopoly against
potential competitive threats from existing or new operating systems,
and to extend its operating system monopoly into other software markets,
Microsoft has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities in
unreasonable restraint of trade, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs
say Microsoft's conduct includes agreements tying other Microsoft
software products to Windows; exclusionary agreements precluding
companies from distributing, promoting, buying, or using products of
Microsoft's software competitors; and exclusionary agreements
restricting the right of companies to provide services or resources to
Microsoft's software competitors or potential competitors.

As a result of Microsoft's conduct, plaintiffs contend they have paid
higher prices for their computers and the accompanying operating
systems. Additionally, the complaint states that the lack of competition
in the operating system market has resulted in diminished product
quality. Microsoft's conduct has also acted to suppress and restrain
innovation and competition in the market for alternative platforms,
plaintiffs allege.

The complaint includes a summary of U.S. District Court Judge Thomas P.
Jackson's findings of fact in United States v. Microsoft (D DC), in
which he concluded Microsoft was a monopolist with vast market power
that it wielded over other firms, including Netscape Communications
Corp. and Sun Microsystems.

Plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages as provided for under
Minnesota's antitrust statute, and punitive damages due to the company's
"intentional, outrageous, and egregious conduct which has been
established as a matter of record in United States v. Microsoft."

Plaintiffs are represented by Richard M. Hagstrom and Michelle K.
Enright of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel & Gette LLP in Minneapolis.
(Antitrust Litigation Reporter, February 2000)

POINT WEST: Resolves CA Securities Suit against Former Dignity Partners
On December 19, 1996, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California (Docket No. C96-4558)
against Dignity Partners, Inc. (now Point West Capital Corporation) and
each of its directors by three individuals purporting to act on behalf
of themselves and an alleged class consisting of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period February 14, 1996 to July 16,

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages, interest, fees and costs. The allegations were
based on alleged misrepresentations in and omissions from the Company's
registration statement and prospectus related to its initial public
offering and certain documents filed by the Company under the Exchange
Act. In the second quarter of 1999, a settlement in principle was
reached and on February 25, 2000, the Court approved a settlement
agreement pursuant to which all claims against all defendants will be
dismissed and $3.15 million will be paid to the plaintiffs.

On February 13, 1997, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California, City and County of San Francisco (Docket No. 984643) against
Dignity Partners, Inc., and each of its executive officers and Echelon
by an individual purporting to act on behalf of himself and an alleged
class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period February 14, 1996 to July 16, 1996. The complaint alleges
that the defendants violated section 25400 of the California Corporate
Code and seeks to recover damages. The allegations are based on alleged
misstatements, concealment and/or misrepresentations and omissions of
allegedly material information in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and subsequent disclosures. The case has been stayed
since its inception by agreement of the parties. However, the claims in
this case are covered by the settlement agreement described above and
will also be dismissed pursuant to the settlement agreement described

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Suit in Ohio
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of P&G, Inc. (NYSE: PG), between January 25, 2000
and March 6, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, announces Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,

The complaint charges P&G 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 financial and operating condition as well as its prospects for
future growth during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that the
Company misrepresented that it was achieving successful growth in line
with expectations under its restructuring plan.

In fact, P&G's growth had slowed considerably due to sharply increased
costs, delays in regulatory approvals for new products and increased
competition. The truth was disclosed on March 7, 2000 when P&G announced
third quarter earnings 10 to 11 percent below a year ago and revised
downward its anticipated earnings per share growth for the remainder of
the fiscal year. In response, P&G shares plunged more than 30% in value.

If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions
related to it, you may 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 PG@bernlieb.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Retirees Concerned with Stock Fall File Suit
Investors who've watched P&G's stock fall by more than half since early
January have sued the company, claiming it provided "materially false
and misleading" stock information. The class action lawsuit charges the
company with overstating its growth projections while covering up
setbacks such as the rising price of raw materials, delays in drug
approval and continuing problems with meeting management goals. The suit
says P&G executives hid information about: high raw prices of pulp,
petroleum and other products; high product launch costs in Europe;
delays in getting approval for Actonel, an osteoporosis drug; strong
competition in North American food and beverage markets; and increased
price competition for laundry detergent in Latin America. The lawyers
are seeking to certify a class that includes everyone who bought P&G
stock between Jan. 25 and March 6.

Thousands of P&G retirees and employees own a lot of shares of the
consumer product giant's stock. Those shares became a lot less valuable
when their value plummeted more than $27 a share the first week of March
after the company warned that third-quarter profits wouldn't meet
analysts' expectations.

Don Apking, who retired from P&G six years ago, says he feels for P&G
employees nearing retirement, some of whom may have to delay their
departures. For example, a 55-year-old with 20,000 shares of P&G stock -
worth $2 million a couple months ago - is facing a portfolio worth $1
million. Before, they might have been able to earn more annually in
retirement than their annual salary; now those expectations are much
lower. Fay, who worked 35 years as a property coordinator for P&G, says
he's never sold a share of P&G and he doesn't plan to now. He doesn't
think other retirees will either.

And it does appear the biggest sellers have been mutual fund managers
and investors without close ties to P&G.

P&G employees may contribute a portion of their salary to an employee
stock ownership plan and the company will match that with shares of
stock redeemable at retirement. And, according to a story in Barron's
this week, 96.3 percent of the plan's assets are invested solely in P&G
stock. "That's great as long as the stock is going up," DeSimio says.
Now, he says, P&G employees who have a long time before retirement may
want to consider putting more money into the plan while the stock price
is low. But people a year or less from retirement have been hurt and
have few immediate options. (Scripps Howard News Service, March 10,

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Ohio
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP announces that on March 9, 2000,
a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Procter &
Gamble (NYSE: PG) two of the Company's officers. The case was filed on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of
Procter & Gamble during the period January 25, 2000 through March 6,

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements in press
releases during the Class Period regarding the Company's financial and
operating condition, as well as its future prospects which allegedly
gave the impression the Company was experiencing successful financial
growth in line with an ambitious restructuring plan. Instead, the
Company was allegedly experiencing less than stellar growth due to high
raw material prices, high product launch costs in Europe, delay in the
approval of the drug Actonel, strong North American competition in food
and beverages, and increased price competition in the Latin American
laundry segment, all of which was not disclosed to the public.

On March 7, 2000, the Company stunned the market when it announced that
its third quarter earnings per share were 10 to 11 percent below those
of a year ago, rather than the 7 to 9 percent increase it had led the
market to anticipate, and that the Company expected earnings per share
growth for the fiscal year to be 7 percent, compared to the 13 percent
originally anticipated. The market reaction to the news was both swift
and disastrous; the price of Procter & Gamble's common stock plunged
approximately 31 percent.

Contact: Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New
York New York 10022, John Halebian, Esq., Telephone: 1-877-935-7400
(toll free), Wechsler Harwood's Shareholder Relations Department, Craig
Lowther, e-mail: clowther@whhf.com and you may also contact: Bull &
Lifshitz LLP at classlaw@bellatlantic.net Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.,
Peter D. Bull, Esq., 246 West 38th Street, New York, New York 10018,
Telephone: (212) 869-9449 or (888) 893-1844 (outside New York State)

RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in PA
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox, LLP has commenced a class action 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 - news) 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. The Complaint further alleges
that defendants' scheme included creating the illusion that Ravisent was
an increasingly profitable company. Pursuant to their scheme, defendants
determined to effectuate the IPO during the fiscal quarter so that no
current period certified financial statements of Ravisent would be

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 the company's 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 trading volume
in excess of 3,500,000 shares.

Contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Brigid T. Kavanaugh, Esq. Hae Sung Nam,
Esq. Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd FL New York, NY
10022 (800) 290-1952 (212) 687-1980 mail@kkf-law.com

RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suits in CO Have Been Consolidated
Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals Inc. reports that the several substantially
identical lawsuits, which purport to be class actions in which the
Company, along with our chief executive officer, are defendants, have
been consolidated in the United States District Court, District of

The lawsuits, filed on behalf of purchasers of common stock of the
Company on November 16 and 17, 1999, allege the defendants violated
certain federal securities laws based upon an allegedly misleading
announcement made on November 15, 1999. No discovery has occurred, and
the Company expects limited discovery to occur pending ruling on
preliminary motions. The cases have been reported in the CAR.

SAFETY KLEEN: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in SC
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Safety Kleen Corp. (NYSE: SK) from July 7, 1998 through March 6, 2000,

The complaint charges Safety Kleen and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's revenues, income and earnings, which resulted in artificially
inflated stock prices during the Class Period. On March 6, 2000, Safety
Kleen announced that it had begun an investigation of its financial
results and put its top executives on administrative leave. The price of
Safety Kleen common stock fell to $2 per share and has declined over 89%
from its class period high.

Contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Philadelphia Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
Robert B. Weiser, Esq. 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 Or
by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com

SMITH A O: Settlement for '99 MI Suit Re Water Heaters to Be Finalised
On July 16, 1999, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court, Western District of Missouri by individuals on behalf of
themselves and all persons throughout the United States who have owned
or currently own a water heater manufactured by Rheem Manufacturing
Company, A. O. Smith Corporation, Bradford White Company, American Water
Heater Company, Lochinvar Corporation and State Industries, Inc. (the
"water heater manufacturers") that contain a dip tube manufactured,
designed, supplied or sold by Perfection Corporation between August 1993
and October 1996. A dip tube is a plastic tube in a residential water
heater which brings the cold water supply to the bottom area of the tank
to be heated.

The class claims in the lawsuit are broad and comprehensive and include
by way of example claims for violation of federal, state, common or
other laws; breach of any duties imposed by contract or otherwise;
claims based on strict product liability, negligence, breach of express
or implied warranty, fraud, conspiracy, suppression, consumer fraud,
unfair or deceptive trade practices, negligent or intentional
misrepresentation, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act.

The plaintiffs and defendants reached a settlement of the claims of this
litigation. On October 21, 1999, the parties petitioned the court to
enter an order determining that the suit may be maintained as a class
action and that the class be constituted as set forth in the complaint.
The petition also asks for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and approval of the form and manner of notice which will be
given to the class members. On November 22, 1999, the court entered an
order giving preliminary approval to the settlement. On April 21, 2000,
the court will hold a hearing on the fairness of the settlement and
final approval of the settlement.

The settlement agreement establishes a procedure whereby members of the
class will be able to file claims for reimbursement of damages
previously incurred for the repair or replacement of a subject dip tube
and, for those class members who have not incurred out-of-pocket expense
or whose subject dip tube related problems have not been fully remedied,
the settlement provides a procedure for the repair and replacement of
the subject dip tubes at no expense to the class member. The expenses of
the reimbursements, repairs and replacements and administration of the
settlement will be paid by the defendant water heater manufacturers. The
settlement agreement contemplates an application to the court for an
award of reasonable attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses incurred on behalf of class members by counsel for the class in
the amount of $5,650,000. The court approved award would also be paid by
the defendant water heater manufacturers.

In consideration of the agreement by the water heater manufacturers to
effectuate the terms of the settlement agreement for the benefit of the
class members, the class members will release and discharge the water
heater manufacturers from any liability for settled claims. Further, all
such claims of the class against Perfection Corporation, the
manufacturer of the subject dip tubes, will be deemed assigned to the
water heater manufacturers. Individuals can elect to be excluded from
the class and separately pursue their remedies and if so elected, would
not be entitled to the benefits of the settlement agreement. All other
legal actions brought against the water heater manufacturers respecting
dip tube claims have been stayed until this lawsuit is resolved.

Separately, the water heater manufacturers on September 29, 1999, filed
a direct action lawsuit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana against the insurers of Perfection
Corporation and American Meter Company, the parent company of
Perfection. This lawsuit seeks coverage from the defendant insurance
companies for (i) the damages that the water heater manufacturers and
the class members in the federal court action referred to above have
incurred because of the property damages caused by the dip tube
failures, (ii) the liability of the water heater manufacturers assumed
by Perfection by contract, and (iii) the personal injuries suffered by
the water heater manufacturers as a result of the disparagement of them
and their products in the media reports relating to the dip tubes.

SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: DCR Lowers Ratings for Notes & Bank Credit Facility
Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co. (DCR) has lowered the ratings of
Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BID) and Sotheby's, Inc. The rating
action reflects the expectation of higher leverage related in part to
possible financial obligations associated with government antitrust
investigations and shareholder and consignor lawsuits. Further,
Sotheby's cash funding requirements are anticipated to rise as a result
of significant increases in Internet-related spending and lower revenues
from valuable single-owner sales at the same time as the company is
completing a major renovation and expansion of its New York headquarters
facility. Recently, Sotheby's suspended its common dividend. The ratings
of Sotheby's and Sotheby's, Inc. remain on Rating Watch-Down. Resolution
of Sotheby's Rating Watch-Down status will require further clarity on
the financial and operational impacts of the investigations and lawsuits
as well as a possible change in the controlling shareholder's ownership

The rating on Sotheby's $100 million senior unsecured notes due 2009 was
downgraded from 'BBB+' (Triple-B-Plus) to 'BBB-' (Triple-B-Minus).
Commercial paper issued by Sotheby's, Inc. under a $300 million program
was lowered from 'D-1-' (D-One-Minus) to 'D-2' (D-Two). For Sotheby's,
Inc., which conducts auction operations in North and South America,
commercial paper borrowings are guaranteed by parent company Sotheby's
and will be supported by a newly amended and restated $300 million
senior secured bank revolving credit agreement, which will expire July
2001. Designated borrowers under the current bank credit agreement
include Sotheby's, Sotheby's, Inc. and two other operating subsidiaries.
The rating on the bank facility was lowered from 'A-' (Single-A-Minus)
to 'BBB' (Triple-B).

Sotheby's ratings were placed on Rating Watch-Down on February 22, 2000
after the company's disclosed that an antitrust investigation by the
Department of Justice (DOJ), foreign governmental inquiries and
shareholder and consignor class action lawsuits could have a material
adverse impact on its financial condition and/or operating results.
Concurrent with the company's announcement, Sotheby's chairman and chief
executive officer both resigned. Although demand remains strong for
better quality auction lots, obtaining supply remains a challenge, and
the allegation of price collusion has tainted the live auction
industry's business reputation. Sotheby's principal competitor,
Christie's International, faces the same allegations and lawsuits but
has reached an agreement for leniency with the DOJ.

TEXACO AFFILIATE: Fd Ct Certifies Class for Race Discrimination Lawsuit
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
(Beaumont Division) has issued a 34 page opinion allowing claims of
broad based race discrimination against Texaco, Inc. and its affiliate
Star Enterprise to proceed as a class action. The class has also been
certified against Shell Oil Company, Aramco Services Company, and Saudi
Refining Inc. as defendants who have various ownership interests in Star
Enterprise and/or its successors.

The lawsuit -- captioned Mathews Smith v. Texaco, Inc., et al. -- covers
African American salaried employees of Star Enterprise from March 23,
1991 to the present who were not encompassed by the landmark 1998
employment discrimination settlement in Roberts v. Texaco, Inc.

Star Enterprise is a joint venture between Texaco, Inc. and Saudi
Refining. Star was formed in part to run what was Texaco's refining arm
on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

In his opinion, Judge Howell Cobb of the United States District Court in
Beaumont, Texas explained that "the plaintiffs in this case claim they
believed they would be part of the Roberts class action. However, it was
later learned the Star employees would not be part of the settlement the
Texaco employees received from Texaco when the judge in Roberts
certified a settlement class only."

The Judge noted that "Plaintiffs have alleged that Star's racially
discriminatory policies originated with Texaco. Texaco has the power to
control Star's employment practices through its indirect 50% ownership
of Star. It also alleged that Texaco uses Star as a training ground for
Texaco employees and that most of Star's assets came from Texaco." The
Judge's opinion means that the Plaintiffs will be able to proceed in
court and try their allegations on a class wide basis as opposed to
proceeding in court through individual claims. All class members will
receive a notice of the Court's opinion and will be given the right to
participate in the case or opt-out. Contact: James Payne of Provost &
Umphrey (Beaumont), 800-289-0101

VISX INC: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Suit in California
VISX Inc. (NASDAQ:VISX) is accused in a class action lawsuit filed by
Finkelstein & Krinsk of violating the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting the company's true business and financial condition in
order to artificially inflate the price of the company's stock.

According to the complaint, the company and its controlling insiders
issued a series of false and misleading statements to the market
regarding, amongst other things, strong and increasing Excimer Laser
procedure and equipment royalties, as well as the company's ability to
maintain a steady income from existing licensing fee levels. The Class
Action alleges that defendants' statements were false or omitted to
state material adverse facts and caused VISX stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels during the Class Period of March 1, 1999
through February 22, 2000, and allowed certain VISX insiders to see 1.4
million shares of the company's stock for approximately $97 million in

The complaint particularizes plaintiff's allegations of how the
company's management violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
specifies the company's false statements and omitted material facts. The
complaint has been filed in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and represents a class comprised of all
individual and institutional investors for the pertinent time period.

For any inquiries or to discuss this lawsuit and alternatives, contact:
Jeffrey R. Krinsk at Finkelstein & Krinsk, the Koll Center, 501 West
Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101, by calling toll free
877-493-5366, E-Mail: fk@ class-action-law.com or fax 619-238-5425.

VISX, INC.: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Securities Complaint
Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato & Goldman Ltd. announces that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
shares of the common stock of VISX, Inc. (Nasdaq: VISX), between March
1, 1999, and February 22, 2000.

The complaint charges VISX and several top officers of the Company with
violating the federal securities laws by materially misrepresenting the
Company's business, outlook for revenue growth and earnings expectations
for fiscal year 2000.

VISX is in the laser vision correction business. It generates revenue in
two ways: through the sale of laser systems and through licensing
revenue. The Company is paid a $250 licensing fee for each laser
procedure. Throughout the Class Period, lower priced competitors entered
the market place, including competitors that did not charge a licensing
fee. Nevertheless, VISX publicly insisted that the $250 per procedure
licensing fee would remain in effect. On February 22, 2000, after the
close of trading, the Company revealed that contrary to prior
representations, it would reduce the $250 per procedure licensing fee,
effectively eliminating 60% of licensing revenue, citing the competition
it previously said would not cause it to lower its per procedure fee.
The complaint alleges that defendants knew, or were reckless in not
knowing that competition would force the company to reduce or eliminate
this fee. As a result of the misstatements, VISX's stock price was
artificially inflated during the Class Period, during which time
defendants sold in excess of $97 million of their shares of VISX common

Contact: Mark Goldman, Esquire of Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato &
Goldman Ltd.,  toll free at 888-545-7201 or by e-mail at


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  * * *