CAR_Public/000324.MBX                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                 Friday, March 24, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 59

                              Headlines

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dying Woman Awarded $6.5M for Childhood Exposure
AVT CORPORATION: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in Washington
AVT CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in Washington
AVT CORPORATION: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in Washington
BESICORP GROUP: NY Supreme Ct Denies Defendants' Appeal from Injunction

CINAR CORP: Lionel Z. Glancy Retained to Bring Securities Suit
COCA-COLA: Names Black Female Human Resources Director
ECONNECT, INC: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in California
FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Keller Rohrback Files Securities Suit
FRUIT OF: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Kentucky

HMOs: AMA Wants Probe on PA Independence Blue and Highmark Re Antitrust
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Jewish Community Likely to Sue Austrian Companies
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Nazi Labor Funds Agreement Reached; Bill Approved
MBNA CORP: DE Ct OKs Class Charging Fraud in Bank's Advertising
MBNA CORP: NY Suit Filed '98 Suit Charges Fraud in Bank's Adverising

MICROSOFT CORP: EC to Open Antitrust Probe in Proposed Telewest Deal
MICROSOFT CORP: Hope for Settlement Renewed, to Leave Company Intact
MICROSTRATEGY INC: Lionel Z. Glancy Retained to Bring Securities Suit
MICROSTRATEGY INC: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Lawsuit in Virginia
MICROSTRATEGY INC: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit

MICROSTRATEGY INC: Wolf Popper Charges Company With Securities Fraud
PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Sprenger & Lang Responds to Job Bias Class Denial
PUBLIX: FL Judge Denies Class Status for Gender Discrimination Case
RACE DISCRIMINATION: Black College Reunion Time for Scouting for Signs
RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in PA

SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Complaint
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in SC
VANTAGEMED CORP: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in California

                              *********

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dying Woman Awarded $6.5M for Childhood Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------------
An Alameda County jury awarded $6.5 million to a 61-year-old woman dying
from cancer that they believe stems from childhood exposure to asbestos
dust carried home from the shipyard where her parents worked.

The verdict -- which lawyers say may be the largest ever in a Northern
California asbestos case -- exemplifies the most recent wave of asbestos
litigation hitting the courts. While many earlier cases were filed by
people exposed to asbestos on the job, more and more cases today involve
plaintiffs who say they were exposed to the carcinogenic asbestos
particles secondhand.

In Jeanette and Darrel Franklin v. USX Corp. and Garlock Corp.,
816407-0, lead plaintiff Jeanette Franklin never worked in a job that
exposed her to asbestos. But both of her parents were employed by a
South San Francisco shipyard during World War II -- her mother was a
carpenter and her father a ship welder. Franklin says she is dying from
mesothelioma -- a cancer linked by medical research to asbestos -- after
being exposed to asbestos her parents carried home with them from work.
Franklin's father has died of cancer; her mother is still alive.

"We had to prove to the jury that asbestos fibers actually did walk off
the shipyard's premises with the workers, got into their cars and went
home with them," said Simona Farrise, lead counsel and a partner with
Kazan, McClain, Edises, Simon & Abrams.

The jury found that Franklin's cancer was caused by asbestos exposure
and that USX Corp. -- successor to Western Pipe and Steel Shipyard --
was liable for negligence. Garlock Corp., which was named in the suit as
the maker of the product that contained asbestos used at the shipyard,
was found not liable.

The jury awarded $5.95 million in damages to Franklin, who is dying from
mesothelioma, and to her husband Darrel, for loss of consortium. The
couple also received more than $112,000 for medical bills; about $30,000
for lost Social Security income; and more than $400,000 for loss of
Jeanette Franklin's contribution to her family's household.

Farrise and her co-counsel, Kazan associate Andrea Huston, relied on the
testimony of seven experts. But she said some of the most compelling
testimony came from former employees of the shipyards who could speak of
the working conditions that they and people like Franklin's parents
endured. One 84-year-old witness told jurors that the dust around them
was so thick that the air looked like down feathers.

Farrise also faced the obstacle of having to prove that Western Pipe and
Steel knew or should have known that asbestos was a poison in 1942. She
looked to trade magazines from the 1940s and also found back issues of
popular magazines, such as a 1950 issue of _Newsweek_ with an article
discussing research linking asbestos and lung cancer.

Rick Murphy of Oakland's Drath, Clifford, Murphy, Wennerholm & Hagen, as
well as Phillip Berry of Oakland's Berry & Berry, represented USX Corp.

"We are, of course, disappointed in the result; we feel there were a
number of errors made during the course of the trial in terms of
rulings, and the matter will be appealed," said John Drath, name partner
with Drath, Clifford.

Robert Barnes with Walnut Creek's Glaspy & Glaspy represented Garlock
Corp. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Hodge presided over
the case.

Farrise noted that Franklin is not expected to live more than six
months: " I'm happy for my client that the case turned out as it did,
but this must be tempered by the fact that what she really needs now is
a medical cure, and she won't have that."  (The Recorder, March 22,
2000)


AVT CORPORATION: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A notice by Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP, March 22 says that that a
Class Action has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle Division on behalf of purchasers
of AVT Corporation (Nasdaq: AVTC) common stock during the period January
20, 2000 and March 17, 2000 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charge AVT and certain of its officers and directors with
violating the federal securities laws. The plaintiff claims that
defendants misrepresented and concealed material problems with the
Cornpany's business, including that customers were delaying new
purchases and that sales of the Company's customer premises product
lines were adversely affected. The Complaint alleges that the defendants
took advantage of this undisclosed information by selling shares of
their AVT common stock without disclosing the adverse information.

Contact: plaintiff's counsel, Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. of Abbey, Gardy &
Squitieri, LLP at 800-889-3701 or 212-889-3700, sfearon@a-g-s.com


AVT CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle Division on behalf of all
purchasers of AVT Corporation (NASDAQ: AVTC) common stock between
January 20, 2000 and March 17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges AVT and certain of its officers and directors with
violating 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 misrepresented and concealed
material problems with the Company's business, including that customers
were delaying new purchases and that sales of the Company's customer
premises product lines were adversely affected. The Complaint alleges
that the defendants took advantage of this undisclosed information by
selling shares of their AVT common stock without disclosing the adverse
information.

Contact: Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 320 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 Fax:
(212) 983-9331 e-mail FaruqiLawAV@aol.com


AVT CORPORATION: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Class Plaintiff, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP announced on
March 22 that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of AVT
Corporation (Nasdaq: AVTC) between January 20, 2000 and March 17, 2000,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, AVT led the market to
believe that its first quarter 2000 results would meet or exceed its
fourth 1999 results and that the Company would continue its profitable
performance. Based on the guidance provided by defendants, the price of
AVT stock continued to rise throughout the Class Period, allowing
Company insiders to reap profits of over $ 46 million on their insider
sales of AVT stock. On March 17, 2000, AVT revealed that results for the
first fiscal quarter and the year 2000 would fall materially below
forecasted earnings. This revelation caused the price of AVT common
stock to plunge to $11.38.

Contacr: Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Jonathan K. Levine, Esq., Brigid T.
Kavanaugh, Esq., Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, 805 Third Avenue -- 22nd
Floor, New York, NY 10022, 800-290-1952, 212-687-1980, Fax:
212-687-7714  E-mail address: mail@kkf-law.com


BESICORP GROUP: NY Supreme Ct Denies Defendants' Appeal from Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the New York Law Journal, March 10, 2000, the case
Lichtenberg V. Besicorp Group Inc. QDS:01762191, was brought as a class
action under the federal securities laws to challenge the sufficiency of
the disclosures made by certain of the defendants in the solicitation of
proxies in connection with a proposed merger. Plaintiffs moved for a
preliminary injunction either enjoining the shareholder vote on the
proposed merger until curative disclosures could be made or requiring
the transfer of certain contingent assets and/or liabilities of Besicorp
to a spin-off company created by the merger.

Following briefing and argument of the motion, the district court
informed the parties that, in light of the imminence of the proposed
merger, the court would immediately enter an order granting the motion
to the extent of ordering the requested transfer of assets/liabilities
and that it would issue as soon thereafter as possible an opinion
explaining the ground for the injunction. Accordingly, on March 18,
1999, the district court entered an order ("Order" or "March 18 Order")
requiring the assets/liabilities transfer and stating that the
injunction was issued "subject to a written Opinion to be filed by the
Court." March 18 Order at 1. The Order further stated that any "motion
for reconsideration or reargument of this Order and the forthcoming
Opinion" should be filed within 10 days of entry of the written opinion.
The written opinion was entered on March 29, 1999 ("March 29 Order"),
and set forth the district court's reasons for granting the injunction.
Given the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) that "every order
granting an injunction... shall set forth the reasons for its issuance,"
see generally Firemen's Fund Insurance Co. v. Leslie & Elliot Co., 867
F.2d 150, 151 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Small v. Kiley, 567 F.2d 163,
164 (2d Cir. 1977), the March 29 Order was the operative injunctive
order.

Defendants filed a notice of appeal from a District Court's order in a
federal securities law class action. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the
appeal on the ground that notice was not timely filed. Defendants
contended that the appeal was saved by the doctrine of "unique
circumstances," since they had obtained plaintiffs' consent and the
District Court's approval, to extend their time to move for
reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court concluded
that the doctrine of "unique circumstances" was inapplicable because
there was no indication that defendants shared their vision that a Local
Rule 6.3 motion would in effect extend their time to appeal from the
District Court's order. The court found that there was no basis for
inferring that plaintiffs or the District Court intended to agree to
such an effect, so the appeal was dismissed.

Under the terms of the March 18 Order, any motion for reconsideration of
the March 29 Order would have been due on Monday, April 12, 1999.
Sometime between March 29 and April 12, Besicorp sought and received the
consent of the plaintiffs and permission from the district court to file
a motion for reconsideration one week beyond the deadline set by the
Order, i.e., by April Besicorp filed its motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules for the Southern District on
April 19.

The district court denied the motion for reconsideration in an Opinion
and Order dated June 23, 1999, entered on June 24 ("June Order"),
stating in pertinent part as follows: A movant is entitled to reargument
and reconsideration of a motion upon demonstrating that the Court
overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were placed
before it on the underlying motion. Local Civil Rule 6.3.... Local Civil
Rule 6.3 is "strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on
issues that have been fully considered by the court."... Therefore, a
motion for reconsideration and reargument "may not advance new facts,
issues or arguments not previously presented to the court."

Finding that defendants had failed to show any controlling authority or
facts that had been overlooked by the court in deciding the injunction
motion, the court denied reconsideration. The court also noted that if
defendants intended to make a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) in
order to introduce new evidence, then the motion is untimely and cannot
be considered by this Court. See Gribble v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1173, 1174
(5th Cir. 1980) (Rule 59(e) ten-day time limit for filing motion is
"jurisdictional and cannot be extended in the discretion of the Court");
see also Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S.
257, 262 n.5 (1978); Lapiczak v. Zaist, 451 F.2d 79, 80 (2d Cir. 1971);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).

On July 21, 1999-within 30 days of the June Order, but more than 30 days
after the March 29 Order-Besicorp filed a notice of appeal from the
March and June Orders. Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss on the ground
that Besicorp's motion for reconsideration was untimely under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) and thus did not extend the 30 - day period for appeal
from the March 29 Order granting the preliminary injunction. Besicorp
contends that it moved for reconsideration in timely fashion, having
been granted an extension by the court, and that in any event its appeal
should be deemed timely under the doctrine of unique circumstances.

In the present case, Besicorp moved under Local Rule 6.3 for
reconsideration of the injunction decision some 15 weekdays after entry
of the March 29 Order, i.e., beyond the 10 - day period allowed by Civil
Rule 59(e) calculated in accordance with Civil Rule 6(a). Since
Besicorp's motion was not timely filed under Rule 59(e), it did not have
the effect of extending Besicorp's time to appeal. Besicorp's reliance
on Ametex Fabrics, Inc. v. Just In Materials, Inc., 140 F.3d 101, 106
(2d Cir. 1998), is misplaced. The appeal time in that case was extended
because the motion for reconsideration was filed seven days after the
entry of judgment.

Besicorp contends alternatively, relying principally on Vine v.
Beneficial Finance Co., 374 F.2d 627, 632 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389
U.S. 970 (1967), that we should deem its notice of appeal timely by
applying the "unique circumstances" doctrine set out by the Supreme
Court in Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 (1964) (per curiam).

To the extent that Besicorp challenges the June Order denying
reconsideration of the injunction, its appeal is timely; and to that
extent, plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Appeal from
such an order, however, calls up for review only the denial of the
reconsideration motion, not the merits of the underlying judgment whose
alteration was sought. See, e.g., Browder v. Director, Department of
Corrections, 434 U.S. at 263 n.7; Daily Mirror, Inc. v. New York News,
Inc., 533 F.2d 53, 56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 862 (1976).

The Court concluded the appeal is untimely and should be dismissed
insofar as it seeks review of the March 29 Order. The appeal is
dismissed except to the extent that it challenges the June Order. (New
York Law Journal, March 10, 2000)

Besicorp Ltd. announced on February 14, as reported in the CAR, that the
New York Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed, with prejudice, a
class action lawsuit against Besicorp Group Inc., the Company's former
parent. The lawsuit, Alan Fenster vs. Besicorp Group Inc. et al. was
filed in January of 1999, and alleged, among other things, that
consideration Besicorp shareholders were to receive from a merger which
became effective on March 22, 1999 was inadequate.


CINAR CORP: Lionel Z. Glancy Retained to Bring Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy has been retained to bring a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Cinar Corporation (Nasdaq:
CINR) between April 8, 1997 and March 10, 2000, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The action will charge Cinar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of material misrepresentations and
omissions. The Complaint will allege, among other things, that Cinar
improperly claimed Canadian government subsidies in the form of tax
credits, and that Cinar misrepresented the financial statements,
revenues and earnings per share. As a result, Cinar's stock price was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period inflicting enormous
damages on investors.

Contact: Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of the Law Offices of Lionel Z.
Glancy, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California
90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150, toll free at (888) 773-9224 or by
e-mail to info@glancylaw.com


COCA-COLA: Names Black Female Human Resources Director
------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Co. has named Coretha Rushing, a 43-year-old black woman, as
head of human resources as the nation's biggest soft drink company
continues to grapple with fallout from massive job cuts and a racial
discrimination lawsuit.

Rushing has worked at Coca-Cola for four years and has 19 years of
experience in human resource management. She replaces Michael Walters,
who retired last month. In her new position, Rushing will be responsible
for overseeing recruitment, staffing, compensation, benefits and
employee training and development.

The soft drink company is in the middle of cutting about 6,000 jobs from
its global workforce of 29,000 and is about to begin negotiations to
settle a discrimination suit.

The suit, filed by eight current and former employees, seeks
class-action status for 2,000 of the company's black salaried employees
in the United States. Coca-Cola denies the lawsuit's contention that the
company discriminates against black employees in pay, promotions and
performance evaluations. However, the company's new leader, Doug Daft,
has said the company is ''working toward an expedient and equitable
resolution.'' Daft also has said he will be linking his success and
compensation as well as his managers' to meeting soon-to-be-established
diversity goals. He is also creating a new position of vice president
and director of diversity, who will report directly to him.

Meanwhile, about 150 current and former employees are planning a
''justice ride'' from Atlanta to the annual shareholders meeting in
Delaware next month to pressure the company into settling the suit
quickly. As the buses roll from Atlanta to the April 19 shareholders
meeting in Wilmington, Del., the company and the plaintiffs' attorneys
are scheduled to begin settlement talks with a court-ordered mediator.
(AP Online, March 23, 2000)


ECONNECT, INC: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California Western Division on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of eConnect, Inc.
(OTC Bulletin Board: ECNC; "eConnect") between November 18, 1999 and
March 13, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that eConnect and its President, CEO and Chairman,
Thomas S. Hughes, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
lawsuit charges that, during the class period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the financial
condition and business prospects of the Company. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that during the Class Period, eConnect made
misrepresentations concerning the revenue generated from its Powerclick
website and misrepresentations regarding its licensing agreement with
Palm Pilot. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements,
the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the class period.

On March 13, 2000, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
suspended trading in eConnect's common stock based upon questions
concerning the accuracy of eConnect's publicly released information. In
addition, eConnect is subject to a SEC consent decree as a result of the
Company's failure to file timely its annual and quarterly SEC documents.

Contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Laurence D. King, Esq., Hae Sung Nam,
Esq., Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, 805 Third Avenue - 22nd Floor, New
York, NY 10022, (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714,
E-mail address: mail@kkf-law.com OR Robert S. Green, Girard & Green LLP,
160 Sansome Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94104, Phone:
(415) 981-4800, Email address: rsg@classcounsel.com


FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Keller Rohrback Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Seattle's Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed a class action complaint against
Focus Enhancements Inc. (NYSE:FCSE) and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Focus
Enhancements common stock between April 29, 1999 and March 1, 2000,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Shareholders allege that Focus Enhancements and certain of its officers
and directors violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by improperly reporting financial results,
including revenues and income, for fiscal year 1999. Complaints allege
that on March 1, 2000, Focus Enhancements announced that its independent
auditors had informed the Board of Directors that it had discovered
certain irregularities relating to the Company's financial controls for
fiscal year ending December 31, 1999 and prior quarters. The Board
established a committee to investigate the matter. Two top officers
agreed to a paid leave from the Company during which time they would
cooperate with the committee's review.

Contact: Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Jen Veitengruber, 800/776-6044
investor@kellerrohrback.com   Website: http://www.SeattleClassAction.com



FRUIT OF: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/fruit/)announced on March 22 that
a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of purchasers of Fruit of
the Loom, Inc. (NYSE:FTL) Class A common stock during the period between
September 28, 1998 and November 4, 1999 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Fruit's two top officers with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the
3rdQ and 4thQ 1998, Fruit told investors it was materially reducing its
levels of finished goods and raw materials inventory by curtailing
production at its maquiladora facilities for several days in each of
those quarters and that Fruit expected strong sales growth in 1999-2000.
On April 21, 1999, Fruit reported its 1stQ 1999 results, including sales
of $408 million and a loss of $.13 per share, compared to year earlier
EPS of $.43. Fruit said these disappointing results were due to an
inability to manufacture sufficient product to meet strong demand. As a
result, Fruit forecast that its 1999 sales would be about $2.0-$2.1
billion, generating EPS of over $1.35, followed by 2000 EPS of over
$2.00, yielding 1999 free cash flow of $225-$275 million. During June
1999-August 1999, Fruit projected a 3rdQ 1999 profit, better 2nd half
1999 results, 1999 free cash flow of $200+ million and represented that
the production problems were now largely resolved and its plants were
running at capacity.

But then, on November 4 1999, Fruit revealed it had suffered an
astonishing loss of $166.4 million in the 3rdQ 1999 on sales of just
$548 million, a loss of $2.49 per share. This huge loss was not only due
to Fruit's poor and out-of-control operations, but also a massive $60
million write-off of over-valued and non-existent inventory, a $20
million loss on cotton futures contracts and a $10 million charge for a
loss on a supply contract from a previously sold facility. In December
1999, Fruit ran out of money and filed for bankruptcy. On March 17,
2000, Fruit announced its 4thQ and year end 1999 results, including a
staggering loss of $398.5 million in the 4thQ 1999. Instead of achieving
success with its operational reorganization, recovering from its
production problems, achieving expense reductions and growing revenues,
net income and EPS, as well as the strong cash flow as defendants had
forecast for Fruit during most of the Class Period, Fruit, in fact,
suffered declining revenues, huge losses and massive cash flow deficits
because its MIS and inventory and production control systems were
defective, its reorganization had failed and it could not overcome its
production problems, leading to massively escalating expenses, all of
which resulted in Fruit's bankruptcy. Fruit's stock became virtually
worthless, inflicting millions of dollars of damage on class members.

Contact: Milberg Weiss William Lerach, 800/449-4900 wsl@mwbhl.com


HMOs: AMA Wants Probe on PA Independence Blue and Highmark Re Antitrust
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Medical Association, continuing its stepped-up attack on
insurers, has asked federal regulators to investigate whether two health
plans in Pennsylvania violated antitrust laws. The AMA contends the two
plans, Independence Blue Cross and Highmark, agreed to divide up the
state -- and gained so much market share as a result that they can
dictate prices and terms to doctors, patients and employers.

"We're asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether or not
this conduct is anti-competitive," says Dr. Donald Smith, president of
the Pennsylvania Medical Society, which joined the AMA in the complaint.

The health plans question the motives of the doctors' groups. "They're
not looking after the well-being of their patients, but rather the
well-being of their members and the income of their members," says
Highmark spokesman Brian Herrmann. Of the charge that the plans agreed
not to compete, Herrmann says: "It sounds misleading and inaccurate.
Competition has never been stronger in this area."

Economist Stephen Foreman, hired by the doctors' groups to research the
issue, says Independence covers 57% of the insured market in
Philadelphia, and Highmark controls 69% in Pittsburgh. "Physicians are
at the mercy of health plans to accept the terms they dictate,
particularly when they get this large, because physicians cannot afford
to lose half their practice," says Dr. Thomas Reardon, president of the
AMA.

The AMA has at least 10 lawsuits against insurers, part of a campaign to
challenge insurers' practices that limit physician autonomy or income.
Last week, the AMA filed a class-action lawsuit against United
Healthcare and Metropolitan Life in New York, alleging the two insurers
use inaccurate data that under-estimates the amounts needed to reimburse
doctors for medical care. In December 1998, the AMA asked the Department
of Justice to investigate Aetna's merger with Prudential, raising
concerns about the resulting market share dominance of Aetna in some
markets. As a condition of the merger, federal regulators required Aetna
to sell some of its business in Dallas and Houston. (USA TODAY, March
23, 2000)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Jewish Community Likely to Sue Austrian Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Jewish Congress said that it may file a class-action suit
against Austria or Austrian companies as part of its program to get
reparations for Nazi-era slave laborers and people whose assets were
looted during World War II.

The Jewish advocacy group added that Austria's efforts to limit
reparations to slaves or forced laborers and not pay compensation for
property claims was unacceptable.

"In general, a class-action suit would be aimed at securing all
questions of restitution," said Executive Director Elan Steinberg.

The WJC is in the midst of talks with Germany to set up a $5 billion
Nazi Holocaust reparation fund. The group's international steering
community, which includes Holocaust survivors, will decide in the next
couple of weeks whether to sue Austria.

"The leadership of the Austrian Jewish community has been very positive
that a class-action suit be filed here," Steinberg said in New York.

How Jewish groups will handle Nazi Holocaust talks with Austria, whose
new government promised swift compensation for former slave laborers, is
a sensitive issue. (Chicago Tribune, March 21, 2000)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Nazi Labor Funds Agreement Reached; Bill Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing the last major obstacle to compensating aging victims of
Nazi-era forced and slave labor, negotiators agreed Thursday, March 23
on how to divide a $5 billion German fund with hopes of starting
payments by year's end.

Under the deal, about 240,000 slave laborers those who were put to work
in concentration camps and had been expected to die doing their jobs
would receive up to $7,500 each. More than 1 million forced laborers,
who worked in factories outside camps, would get up to $2,500 each.

''We have taken a huge step forward today,'' said Deputy Treasury
Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, the U.S. government envoy to the talks.
''This brings this process a substantial step closer to completion.''

All sides agreed in December on the size of the fund, to be split
equally by German government and industry. But negotiators had been
wrangling over how to divide the money among various groups.

They have been working under pressure to start making payments as soon
as possible because many victims are in their 70s.

Noah Flug, 75, an Auschwitz survivor who heads an umbrella organization
of Holocaust survivor groups in Israel and was one of the negotiators,
said two-thirds of the people who could have been eligible for money
already have died. ''It is better late than never,'' he said of the
agreement Thursday, echoing a common refrain of the victims' groups.
''We've worked very hard to get that compensation fund up and going and
to be able to begin the distribution,'' U.S. Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright said in Geneva of the agreement.

Germany has paid about $60 billion under other compensation programs for
Nazi-era wrongs since World War II. But many people eligible for the
labor compensation are non-Jews from eastern Europe who were prevented
from receiving the earlier money because they were behind the Iron
Curtain.

Claims also were stymied for decades by industry's insistence that the
workers were forced on them by the Nazi regime, while the government
maintained it was not responsible because the laborers toiled for
private companies.

The Nazis used slave laborers in concentration camps as another means of
killing, expecting the victims to die because of the extreme work
conditions. Forced laborers were brought to Germany from eastern Europe
to keep German industry running during the war and replace German
workers sent to the front lines.

The agreement would allocate just over $4 billion to compensate slave
and forced labor victims and $500 million to cover claims for property,
bank accounts and insurance policies stolen by the Nazis as well as
''humanitarian cases.'' About $350 million will be used for a foundation
to sponsor research and educational projects on Nazi labor, with the
remainder going for administrative costs and legal fees.

German industry proposed a compensation fund last year, under pressure
of U.S. class-action lawsuits. As part of the deal, the U.S. government
has promised to ask courts to refer lawsuits to the foundation for
settlement.

Eizenstat said to guarantee U.S. support, the German parliament must
enact legislation that conforms with the principles agreed to in the
talks. Leaders of the talks refused to elaborate on the details of
possible problems, which are expected to be discussed in smaller working
groups. Another round of full negotiations hasn't been scheduled.

On Wednesday, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Cabinet approved a bill to
set up the fund; plans call for the measure to be enacted by July. After
the legislation is finalized, victims will have eight months to apply
for compensation, Eizenstat said. (AP Online, March 23, 2000)


MBNA CORP: DE Ct OKs Class Charging Fraud in Bank's Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in MBNA's report with the SEC, MBNA Corporation, a
registered bank holding company, was incorporated under the laws of
Maryland on December 6, 1990. It is the parent company of MBNA America
Bank, N.A., a national bank organized in January 1991 as the successor
to a national bank formed in 1982 and the Corporation's principal
subsidiary. The Bank has two wholly owned foreign bank subsidiaries,
MBNA International Bank Limited ("MBNA Europe") formed in 1993 and
located in the United Kingdom and MBNA Canada Bank ("MBNA Canada")
formed in 1997. The Corporation says that through the Bank, it is the
largest independent credit card lender in the world and is the leading
issuer of affinity credit cards, marketed primarily to members of
associations and Customers of financial institutions. In addition to its
credit card lending, the Corporation also makes other consumer loans and
offers insurance and deposit products.

In its report to the SEC, MBNA Corp discloses that in May 1996, Andrew
B. Spark filed a lawsuit against the Corporation, the Bank and certain
of its officers and its subsidiary MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc. The case
is pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware. This suit is a purported class action.

The plaintiff alleges that the Bank's advertising of its cash
promotional annual percentage rate program was fraudulent and deceptive.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an alleged breach of contract,
violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and violation of
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In
February 1998, a class was certified by the District Court.


MBNA CORP: NY Suit Filed '98 Suit Charges Fraud in Bank's Adverising
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 1998, Gerald D. Broder filed a lawsuit against the
Corporation and the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York. This suit is a purported class action. The plaintiff
alleges that the Bank's advertising of its cash promotional annual
percentage rate program was fraudulent and deceptive. The plaintiff
seeks unspecified damages including actual, treble and punitive damages
and attorneys' fees for an alleged breach of contract, common law fraud
and violation of New York consumer protection statutes. The Corporation
asserts in its report to the SEC that it believes that its advertising
practices were and are proper under applicable federal and state law and
intends to defend these actions vigorously.


MICROSOFT CORP: EC to Open Antitrust Probe in Proposed Telewest Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Commission said it was opening a full antitrust probe into
the proposed acquisition by Microsoft Corp. and Liberty Media Corp. of
joint control in British cable company Telewest Communications PLC. The
investigation will focus on sales of software for digital set-top boxes
for cable television in Britain.

CAMPBELL SOUP CEO QUITS: Campbell Soup Co. said Dale F. Morrison has
quit as president and chief executive. Morrison, 51, was appointed to
those positions in June 1997. David W. Johnson, 67, who held the same
roles from 1990 to 1997, will be interim chief executive. Campbell's
stock closed at $ 29.69, down 69 cents. The announcement came after the
close of traditional trading. The soupmaker's stock has fallen nearly 50
percent since November 1998. (St. Petersburg Times, March 23, 2000)


MICROSOFT CORP: Hope for Settlement Renewed, to Leave Company Intact
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Out-of-court negotiations between Microsoft Corp. and government
antitrust lawyers have come to life in recent weeks and could be edging
closer to a deal that does not involve breaking up the world's largest
software company, according to people familiar with the talks.

The two sides are talking to each other not directly but rather through
Richard Posner, an appellate judge and renowned legal scholar in
Chicago. Posner agreed last year to mediate a settlement of the most
significant antitrust case of the information age.

Details of the discussions are not public, but the sources say the focus
is on changes in Microsoft's business practices rather than any proposal
to break up the company, which Microsoft steadfastly opposes. While the
Justice Department and 19 states prefer a breakup of the company, the
government is willing to consider a lesser remedy provided it is strong
enough, according to the sources.

The recent flurry of paperwork, e-mail and phone calls between Posner
and the parties, coming at all hours of day and night, contrasts starkly
with the stalled talks in the days leading up to closing arguments a
month ago in U.S. District Court in Washington. But the clock is running
out--the presiding judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, is within weeks of
issuing his final judgment.

Jackson already has ruled in his findings of fact that Microsoft's
Windows gives it a monopoly in operating-system software for personal
computers and that the company has used that monopoly to harm
competition, innovation and consumers. He next will rule on whether
those acts broke antitrust law.

Some computer industry officials closely following the government's case
are skeptical about the recent activity, saying that lawyers on both
sides might be eager to appear to be making a good-faith effort to
settle. "Both sides are preparing to win the blame game" when the talks
fail, said one industry official.

Spokesmen for both sides have declined to comment on the settlement
talks. Joel I. Klein, chief of the Justice Department's antitrust
division, told a Senate Judiciary Committee panel on antitrust that
"settlement is better than litigation, but settlement would have to be
appropriate to the findings."

On Tuesday, the parties participated in a closed-door scheduling
conference with Jackson. The judge has told the lawyers that if they are
making progress in the talks, he will wait before issuing a final
judgment. Some involved in the case have said that they would have
expected a ruling to be issued by this month, given how long the judge
has spent deliberating his findings of fact.

Posner, the chief appellate judge of the 7th Circuit, recruited by
Jackson to mediate the case, has conducted continuing and separate
series of talks with Microsoft and the government. The sources say that
Posner has worked methodically and tirelessly to refine the areas of
difference and possible remedies so that the two sides can hash out
their remaining differences face to face.

The government camp is divided over whether the latest exchanges with
Posner really can lead to an enforceable settlement that corrects the
damage that government attorneys say Microsoft has done to the market,
according to the sources.

The move toward settlement comes as Microsoft has gotten strong signs
that Wall Street would prefer a deal. The company's stock price has
bounced around, dipping to below $ 90 after closing arguments last
month.

"We note that the shares have traded down sharply over the past month,"
Goldman, Sachs analyst Richard Sherlund said after meeting this month
with Microsoft's chief financial officer. "While the risk of an adverse
decision in the [Justice Department] case overhangs the stock, we are
hopeful that a settlement might be reached, providing a potential
catalyst for improving investor sentiment."

The shares have rebounded more recently on word that the settlement
talks were continuing.

One possible motivation for Microsoft to reach a settlement is the
danger of private lawsuits filed by class-action lawyers. A U.S.
District Court judgment against the company could add significant
momentum to those cases--110 lawsuits in 28 states--under federal
antitrust law, which permits that judgment to be used in the follow-on
cases.

Attorneys in those cases insist that even without a final judgment, they
have significant ammunition through the thousands of pages of documents,
e-mail messages and depositions already made public in the case.

"We think we have a lot to work with already," said Mike Hausfeld, a
Washington lawyer who has filed one of the follow-on lawsuits. "We did
not rely exclusively on Judge Jackson's decision."

The attorneys are fighting in federal court in Utah this week, seeking
permission to use hundreds of boxes of Microsoft-related documents
collected in a separate antitrust lawsuit filed filed by Caldera Systems
Inc., a Utah software company.

The attorneys also will have access to hundreds of depositions from the
government's case that were ordered open to the public under a
97-year-old law, the Publicity in Taking Evidence Act. The law was
intended to permit the public to review business actions of monopolists
revealed in cases filed under the Sherman Act.

The law received renewed public attention in 1998, when The Washington
Post, the Seattle Times and other newspapers cited it in a successful
attempt to make public the deposition of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.

In a little-noticed action last fall, the House of Representatives voted
to repeal the open-depositions law. The proposal has not yet been acted
upon by the Senate.

The repeal of the law, however, would not retroactively close the court
record to class-action attorneys in the Microsoft follow-on lawsuits,
said Andrew I. Gavil, a Howard University professor who first wrote
about the repeal efforts.

Microsoft has made preparations to attack those follow-on lawsuits,
particularly if it settles the case with the government, and has hired
prominent Seattle class-action lawyer Steve Berman to help defend the
company. (The Washington Post, March 23, 2000)


MICROSTRATEGY INC: Lionel Z. Glancy Retained to Bring Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy has been retained to bring a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of MicroStrategy Incorporated
(Nasdaq: MSTR) between June 11, 1998 and March 20, 2000, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The action will charge MicroStrategy and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of material
misrepresentations and omissions. The Complaint will allege
MicroStrategy made mis-representations about its financial statements,
revenues and earnings per share. As a result, MicroStrategy's stock
price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On March
20, 2000, MicroStrategy disclosed the truth, shocking the investment
community when it announced that the Company is "revising its 1999 and
1998 revenues and operating results." The market reacted swiftly and
MicroStrategy's stock price plunged more than 50%, inflicting enormous
damages on investors.

Contact: Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of the Law Offices of Lionel Z.
Glancy, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California
90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150, toll free at (888) 773-9224 or by
e-mail to info@glancylaw.com


MICROSTRATEGY INC: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Lawsuit in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of
MicroStrategy Incorporated (Nasdaq: MSTR) stock between June 11, 1998
and March 20, 2000.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5
thereunder. Defendants include MicroStrategy, Michael J. Saylor
(President and CEO), Mark S. Lynch (CFO and VP Finance) and Sanju K.
Bansal (COO and EVP). Among other things, plaintiff claims that
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
the company's operating results and financial performance.

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


MICROSTRATEGY INC: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff announced that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the stock of
MicroStrategy Incorporated (Nasdaq: MSTR) between June 11, 1998 and
March 20, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that MicroStrategy and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial statements,
revenues and earnings per share. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that during the Class Period MicroStrategy issued false statements about
its "record" revenues and revenue growth thereby causing its stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels.

On March 20, 2000, MicroStrategy admitted that its 1999 and 1998
revenues and operating results had been false due to improper timing of
revenue recognition. The Company announced that it must restate its
revenues for both fiscal years, which will substantially reduce its 1999
and 1998 results. The Company stated that it will reduce its 1999
reported revenue from $205.3 million to between approximately $150.0
million and $155.0 million, and its results of operations from diluted
net income per share of $0.15 to a diluted loss per share of between
approximately $(0.43) and $(0.51). It will also reduce its reported
revenues for 1998 from $106.4 million to between approximately $95.9
million and $100.9 million, and its results of operations from diluted
net income per share of $0.08 to diluted net income per share of between
approximately $0.04 and $ 0.01.

Contact: plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman or Beth Mandel Rosenthal
toll-free at 888/844-5862 or via E-mail at
classaction@spectorandroseman.com  Website at
http://www.spectorandroseman.com


MICROSTRATEGY INC: Wolf Popper Charges Company With Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MicroStrategy (Nasdaq: MSTR), its Chief Executive Officer, Michael
Saylor, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mark Lynch, have been charged
by Wolf Popper LLP in a class action lawsuit with committing securities
fraud. That lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
MicroStrategy common stock from January 27, 2000 through March 17, 2000.

The Complaint charges that the defendants manipulated MicroStrategy's
stock price by improperly and prematurely recognizing revenue throughout
1998 and As a result of defendants illegal accounting manipulations
MicroStrategy's publicly reported financial results were artificially
inflated throughout the class period.

The Complaint further alleges that the individual defendants,
MicroStrategy's CEO and CFO, sought to profit from their accounting
manipulations by seeking to sell MicroStrategy stock valued at over $379
million, at prices artificially inflated by their illegal actions.

Contact: James A. Harrod, Esq. (212-451-9642) or Douglas Rotela,
Investor Relations Representative (212-451-9625), WOLF POPPER LLP, 845
Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022-6689, Toll Free: 877-370-7703, Facsimile:
212-486-2093 or 212-486-2238, E-Mail: jharrod@wolfpopper.com or
IRRep@wolfpopper.com Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Sprenger & Lang Responds to Job Bias Class Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court judge on March 21 ruled that, despite evidence
that women in Publix Supermarkets' warehouses and plants have been
channeled into low-paying "female jobs," they cannot bring their claims
as a class action as the case now stands. The court ruled that the ten
women who filed a class action on behalf of thousands of other women at
Publix were too dissimilar to women who have been stuck in low-paying
menial line or clerical jobs to represent those women.

"This decision does not reflect negatively on the merits of this case,"
said the women's lawyer, Susan Stokes. "In fact, the court wrote that
the statistics presented by the women, appear to show that women in the
warehouses are under-represented in many of the warehouse positions,
particularly the selector position, as well as many others.'" "The
decision also does not close the door on the court certifying a class of
women in the warehouses, if other women are willing to come forward to
represent the class," added Stokes.

The lawsuit alleges that Publix discriminates against women in its
warehouses and plants by channeling them into low-paying "women's jobs"
while the "male jobs" pay more and lead to advancement. Publix settled a
similar case brought by female employees in its stores for $80 million
in 1997.

The decision means that, unless and until a class is approved, women in
Publix' plants and warehouses must now file individual lawsuits against
Publix. Publix could face scores if not hundreds of individual lawsuits
by women alleging the same type of discrimination. Stokes is a partner
in the Minneapolis office of Sprenger & Lang, which specializes in
national employment class action litigation.

Contact: Susan Stokes, Minneapolis, 612-871-8910, or Michael Lieder,
Washington DC, 202-265-8010, both of Sprenger & Lang


PUBLIX: FL Judge Denies Class Status for Gender Discrimination Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 21 U.S. District Judge Henry L. Adams issued an order denying
Plaintiffs' request for class certification of the Dyer gender
discrimination lawsuit against Publix. This class action lawsuit filed
in Federal District Court in Tampa, Fla., in November of 1997 alleged
gender discrimination in Publix's manufacturing plants, warehouses and
distribution centers.

Plaintiffs alleged that Publix discriminated against women by steering
them into predominantly female, lower-paying jobs that hindered their
abilities to advance. However, the court found that the facts concerning
the named Plaintiffs did not support these allegations. The Company
asserts that although several named Plaintiffs were initially hired into
what they claim were dead-end jobs, they were able to advance into
positions such as forklift operator, mechanic and receiving clerk.

Plaintiffs also alleged that Publix's policies and practices discouraged
women from pursuing what Plaintiffs called traditionally male jobs.
However, Judge Adams said, "Several of the proposed class
representatives were actually encouraged or were approached to apply for
male jobs by their supervisors." Judge Adams further stated: "Many of
the named Plaintiffs have received promotions into or have been able to
obtain traditionally male positions. ...None of these women have been
unable to obtain male' jobs because of channeling or because they were
denied the opportunity to apply for a male' job."

Regarding the Plaintiffs' allegation that Publix denied training, thus
preventing women from obtaining transfers and promotions, Judge Adams
stated, "...many of the proposed class representatives have testified
that they did receive training..."


RACE DISCRIMINATION: Black College Reunion Time for Scouting for Signs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An $8 million settlement may have resolved discrimination lawsuits
against Adam's Mark hotels, but attorneys and NAACP officials say they
will be watching other businesses during next week's Black College
Reunion.

Members of the NAACP's Daytona Beach branch said Wednesday that not only
will they scout around for signs of discrimination during the three-day
event but they are encouraging those who attend to report any
mistreatment they observe.

"We will continue to monitor the activities of the Adam's Mark as well
as those of other hotels in the area and restaurants during Black
College Reunion," said Charles Cherry, president of the NAACP chapter
and a Daytona Beach city commissioner. "We're asking all students who
come to Daytona Beach to file complaints with this branch of the NAACP
if they experience discrimination while they are here."

A similar strategy last year resulted in the lawsuit against the Adam's
Mark. NAACP members kept a list of businesses that closed or altered
procedures last year, and they plan to visit those places again when BCR
returns from March 31 to April 2. The attorneys will come along.

The U.S. Justice Department and Florida Attorney General's Office say
they will have officers in town for the weekend. Sam Smith, one of the
lead attorneys in the Adam's Mark lawsuit, will be here.

The Tampa attorney has been to Daytona Beach for Black College Reunion
and Biketoberfest and said the treatment for bikers is better than it is
for BCR visitors. The Adam's Mark settlement shows how vulnerable those
businesses could be, he said. "A lot of hotels and restaurants should
take note of the outcome of this suit, especially in Daytona Beach," the
Tampa attorney said. "We've seen videotape of what happens during Black
College Reunion. We've seen how African-Americans are treated at some of
these places."

Complaints against the Daytona Beach Adam's Mark during last year's
reunion led to a lawsuit filed by five visitors who said the hotel
charged higher rates to blacks, subjected them to stricter security
measures and provided them with inferior service. The settlement
announced Tuesday - which still needs court approval - includes $4.4
million for hotel guests and visitors in the proposed class action; $1.5
million to historically black colleges; and $1.75 million for the
attorneys.

With those numbers in the news, few business owners are willing to talk
about their BCR policies for fear of being targeted by the NAACP, yet it
seems as if many have taken note. Among the more prominent closings last
year were a Taco Bell and a Shells restaurant in the heart of the
beachside tourism district. Managers at both chains said that their
restaurants would be open this year. Other owners said there are
legitimate business reasons for changing policies during the reunion.
For instance, some owners cut back on hours because they need all their
employees to handle the rush of people during peak hours.

Danny Myara, owner of the Cruisin' Cafe Bar & Grill on South Atlantic
Avenue, across the street from the Adam's Mark, said he would be open
again this year but would reserve his dining room for police officers on
break, as he did last year. Hungry BCR visitors will have to be
satisfied with takeout fare from a walk-up window. Myara said partygoers
prefer that. "This is an outdoor, street event. Most people don't want
to come in and sit down to eat," Myara said. "If I opened the dining
room I would have damage [from rowdy visitors), but I wouldn't have any
more business." Myara was unconcerned that his policy might leave him
open to charges of discrimination. "It has nothing to do with
discrimination," said Myara, who was born in Morocco. "If anyone says
something, I tell them, 'I'm more African than you'll ever be.' "I'm
here to make money. I'm in business. Their money's as green as everybody
else's money."

Myara's brother, Simon, owner of Cruisin' & Co. clothing store on North
Atlantic Avenue, said everyone would be happier if all businesses
followed his family's example and tried to make a buck off of the event.
Simon Myara will stock special BCR T-shirts and fashions such as FUBU
that are popular among young blacks. To him, it is the same as stocking
up on leather for Bike Week or bathing suits for spring break. "We've
always had great times during Black College Reunion," he said. "The
problem is people don't like to adapt. They don't like to bend." (THE
ORLANDO SENTINEL, March 23, 2000)


RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Class Plaintiff, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, announces that a
class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Ravisent Technologies (NASDAQ: RVST) between July
15, 1999 and March 14, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Ravisent and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging 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. This was done so that the Company's
Initial Public Offering ("IPO") would occur at the maximum price per
share, and to then create the expectation in the market that Ravisent
was an increasingly profitable company.

Contact: Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager, at Barrack,
Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, at 800/417-7305 or 215/963-0600, fax number
888/417-7306 or 215/963-0838, or by e- mail at msgoldman@barrack.com


SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP announced on March 22 that
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Safety-Kleen
Corporation (NYSE: SK) securities between July 7, 1998 and March 5, 2000
(the "Class Period"). The action will charge Safety Kleen 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 false and misleading
financial statements that materially overstated the Company's revenues,
income and earnings during the Class Period. On March 6, 2000,
Safety-Kleen shocked the market by announcing that it "has initiated an
internal investigation of its prior reported financial results and
certain of its accounting policies and practices following receipt by
the Company's Board of Directors of information alleging possible
accounting irregularities that may have affected the previously reported
financial results of the Company since fiscal year 1998." In addition,
three of the Company's top executives have been placed on administrative
leave for the duration of the investigation.

Contact: Ira Press, Esq. Danielle Feman, Paralegal KIRBY MCINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone:
(212) 317-2300 or Toll Free (888) 529-4787 Email: dfeman@kmslaw.com


SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in SC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman announces that a class action lawsuit
against Safety-Kleen Corp. (NYSE:SK) and its senior executives was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina seeking to recover damages on behalf of defrauded investors who
purchased Safety-Kleen securities.

The complaint charges Safety-Kleen and its top executives with
violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
issued materially false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning Safety-Kleen's revenues, income and earnings per
share.

Contact: Moshe Balsam, (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.


VANTAGEMED CORP: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. gives notice on March 22 that a class
action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California on behalf of a Class of persons who
purchased the common stock of VantageMed Corporation (NASDAQ: VMDC) in
its February 15, 2000 Initial Public Offering.

The complaint charges VantageMed and certain of its officers, directors
and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
VantageMed completed an IPO of 3,000,000 shares of stock at $12 per
share pursuant to a registration Statement/Prospectus. The complaint
alleges that the Registration Statement/Prospectus was false and
misleading, failing to describe the fact that the Company had been
delayed in introducing a new version of its most important product,
Ridgeway medical management, which delay would adversely affect the
Company's future results.

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


                              *********


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  * * *