/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000418.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 18, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 76 Headlines AURORA FOODS: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA BENICORP: Mother Fighting Insurer Is Advocate for Deaf Children CINAR CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Complaint COCA-COLA: Former Manager Says Response to Racial Bias Suit Inadequate COREL CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in MA CROWN CENTRAL: Contests Environmental Superfund Suits inTX CROWN CENTRAL: Contests Shareholders' Suit in TX Filed by Employees CROWN CENTRAL: Defends Alleged Noncompliance with Clean Air Act in VA CROWN CENTRAL: DOJ Is Considering Action on Alleged Sulfur Violations CROWN CENTRAL: Employees File Suit in TX Alleging Race and Sex Bias CROWN CENTRAL: Faces Shareholders Lawsuit in MD CROWN CENTRAL: Houston Residents Sue for Damages from Plant Operations CROWN CENTRAL: NC Ct Orders Mediation for MTBE Lawsuit CROWN CENTRAL: Shut in Wells; Negotiates with EPA and DOJ Re Oil Spill CROWN CENTRAL: TX Suit Re Injuries & Damage from Refinery in Discovery ECONNECT, INC: Agrees to SEC Injunction, Says the Pomerantz Firm FEN-PHEN: Former Users Negative on Proposed AHP Settlement HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Austria Is Mired in Wave of Calls to Face up History JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Settlement for Derivative Suits in '94 Pending JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Settles Securities Suits Filed in NY in '94, '95 LENNAR HOMES: Miami Homeowners Denied Class Status MICROSTRATEGY INC: Berger & Montague Files Securities Lawsuit MICROSTRATEGY, INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in VA POTOMAC ELECTRIC: Lawsuit Filed over Patuxent River Oil Spill QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in DE TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Lawsuit in CA VISX, INC: Revenues Rise, Contests Securities Suits Ahead VISX, INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Advises on Securities Litigation W.R. GRACE: LCHB Announces Nationwide Suit Re Zonolite Attic Insulation YBM MAGNEX: Cross-Border Legal Alliance Creates 'Powerhouse' ********* AURORA FOODS: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, Berger & Montague, P.C.(http://home.bm.net)filed a class action on behalf of an investor and a class of persons who purchased the common stock of Aurora Foods, Inc., (NYSE:AOR) during the period April 28, 1999 through February 17, 2000, inclusive ("The Class"). The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants are Aurora Foods, Inc. ("Aurora") and several of its senior officers. Plaintiff alleges that during the class period defendants knew that, unbeknownst to investors, Aurora had engaged in improper accounting practices, including accruals for trade promotion expenses during fiscal 1999. As a consequence, Aurora's financial results were materially overstated such that it would be forced to take a charge against 1999 earnings that would materially reduce earnings or result in a loss. Upon the news of these accounting improprieties and their results, the per share price for Aurora stock declined by more than 45% thereby causing members of the Class to suffer damages. Contact: Todd S. Collins, Esq. Jacob A. Goldberg, Esquire Kimberly A. Walker, Paralegal Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone:888/891-2289 or 215/875-3000 Fax:215/875-5715 Website: http://home.bm.nete-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net BENICORP: Mother Fighting Insurer Is Advocate for Deaf Children --------------------------------------------------------------- A woman fighting an insurance company to pay for an implant that would allow her eldest daughter to hear is now a prominent advocate of improving services for deaf children. Angie King, a onetime stay-at-home mom, divides her time between motherhood and campaigning nationally for laws requiring insurance companies to cover the costs of hearing aids and cochlear implants. "I never would've imagined this in a million years. I've gone from my jeans and T-shirts to suits and heels," said King, president and spokeswoman of Hear US, an advocacy group supporting deaf children. She has contacted the White House and other federal agencies and has met with presidential candidates Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore to ask for help. And King is continuing her fight in court by filing a federal class-action lawsuit against her insurer, Indianapolis-based Benicorp. If King wins the lawsuit, the company will have to reimburse the family for 4-year-old Erica's cochlear implant as well as pay every other client it has refused to reimburse for cochlear implants. King's daughter Erica was diagnosed with a hearing impairment when she was 11 months old and became completely deaf shortly after. King and her husband, Mark, found that hearing could be restored with cochlear implants, an artificial inner ear that takes over the job of the cochlea. But their insurance company, Indianapolis-based Benicorp, refused to pay for the $50,000 procedure. Erica underwent the procedure last May. "We feel they should be paid for," King told The Lima News for a story Saturday. "There's nothing in the policy that excludes it." But Benicorp denied the family's appeal for reimbursement and then refused to abide by an Ohio Department of Insurance decision in the Kings' favor. The Kings, of Celina, about 60 miles north of Dayton, then complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, citing discrimination under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. A decision on that complaint has not yet been made. While awaiting that ruling, King also continues doing the work she loves best being a mom. Although the process is long and difficult, King said it is important for her to keep going. "We're paving a brand new road," she said, adding that it might have been easier to give up. But Benicorp, King said, shouldn't be able to ignore its obligations. "It's the principle," she said. (The Associated Press, April 17, 2000) CINAR CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The following is an announcement by the law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP: Cinar Corporation (Nasdaq:CINR) and three of the Company's senior officers allegedly issued a series of materially false and misleading statements during the period between April 8, 1997 and March 10, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period") concerning the Company's tax practices and financial performance which resulted in the inflation of Cinar's common stock price. In particular, it is alleged that the Company presented its financial results in a manner which violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") by, among other things, falsely representing that scripts written by United States citizens were written by Canadian citizens in order to obtain favorable tax credits. It is further alleged that Cinar's actions had the effect of artificially inflating its financial statements during the Class Period, according to the Complaint filed by Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (http://www.pomerantzlaw.com)on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Cinar during the Class Period. Contact: Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of 888-476-6529 ((888) 4-POMLAW) or agtolan@pomlaw.com COCA-COLA: Former Manager Says Response to Racial Bias Suit Inadequate ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Coca-Cola Co. needs to pay out more settlement money and show greater respect for black employees or face a national boycott of its products, supporters of a racial discrimination lawsuit against the company said Sunday April 16. On the second day of a five-day bus ride from Atlanta to Coca-Cola's annual shareholders meeting in Wilmington, Del., protest organizer Larry Jones said Coke hasn't yet offered enough money to settle the suit. Jones, a former Coca-Cola manager, also said the Atlanta-based beverage giant needs to undergo a "180-degree change" that halts discrimination against African-American employees in pay, promotions and performance evaluations. The company has denied the suit's allegations and opposed efforts to make it a class-action case. That would expand representation beyond its original eight plaintiffs to 2,000 current and former black employees in the United States. Coca-Cola spokesman Ben Deutsch said the company is working toward a "fair and expeditious resolution" but is prohibited from talking about the negotiations. Attorneys for both sides are scheduled to meet in mediator-aided negotiations. The Greensboro rally took place a few blocks from the historic, now-closed Woolworth's store where four college students demanded counter service 40 years ago. Their nonviolent protest sparked the 1960s sit-in movement that brought an end to discrimination in public accommodations. Recalling that era Sunday, the group of about 45 "justice riders" bunched together for the benefit of TV cameras. They wore red caps and red buttons and hoisted hand-written placards reading, "Coke, discrimination hurts." Whether Jones calls for a boycott of Coke products could depend on how much progress is made to settle the suit. Jones said Sunday at Bethel AME Church in Greensboro that Coke's response is insufficient. He said the plaintiffs are seeking back pay, bonuses and stock options covering the period that employees claim to have been discriminated against. Coke needs to pay all of the compensation in cash, he said, even covering the stock options. "I don't think Coke plans to get anywhere close to where they need to get to," said Jones, adding that his group is also seeking guarantees of " something that is very meaningful, a philosophical change in the company." "We cannot afford to talk about appointing a few blacks here and there, giving a few dollars to some people, promoting a few vice presidents who are black, and then believe that we have done something," Jones said. "We need a 180-degree change in the Coca-Cola Company." Angela Graham, a former Coke employee who is riding the bus, said the company can avoid a boycott if officials "give fair and equitable treatment among all the employees." She said the boycott would be national in scope, reaching beyond Coke products to restaurants, convenience and grocery stores and other establishments selling the products. The suit already has damaged Coke's reputation and stock value, says the trustee of the state of New York's common retirement fund, which owns 7.4 million Coca-Cola shares. That large institutional investor has urged Coke to settle the suit quickly. Bus rider Jean Long, a Coke employee for 8 1/2 years, said she owns company shares in her 401(k) retirement plan. Despite the stock's decline, she said, she would support a potentially damaging boycott if her group, the Committee for Corporate Justice, called for one. "I want to see change," said Long, who believes she has been passed over for promotions because she is black. "It is not going to get better if we don't stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.' " None of the eight plaintiffs is riding the bus, which after traveling from Atlanta to Greensboro, is scheduled to arrive in Richmond on Monday. Tuesday, the group plans a rally in Washington, D.C., before proceeding Wednesday to Wilmington. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, April 17, 2000) COREL CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in MA --------------------------------------------------------------- Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP on April 14 announces that a shareholder of Corel Corporation (Nasdaq: CORL) has filed a class action lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The shareholder seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws. This notice is directed to all investors who purchased Corel Corporation common stock between December 7, 1999 and December 21, 1999 ("the Class Period"). The lawsuit charges Corel and its CEO, Michael C.J. Cowpland with violations of the federal securities laws and regulations promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Corel's fourth quarter 1999 results. Specifically, Corel misled the market concerning the fact that it had sustained large losses. Upon the announcement that results for the fourth quarter of 1999 would be significantly below estimates, Corel's stock price plunged 28% on extraordinarily heavy trading volume. Contact: Chauncey D. Steele IV, Jeffrey Block, Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, E-Mail: bdplaw@bermanesq.com or (800) 516-9926. Web site at http://www.bermanesq.com CROWN CENTRAL: Contests Environmental Superfund Suits inTX ---------------------------------------------------------- In February 1998, the Company and thirteen other companies, including several major oil companies, were sued on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (the "Superfund Statute") to recover the costs of removal and remediation at the Sikes Disposal Pits Site (the "Sikes Site") in Harris County, Texas. The Company does not believe that it sent any waste material to the Sikes Site or that there is any credible evidence to support the government's claim that it did so. The Company says it has developed considerable evidence to support its position that it should not have been named as a Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP"). The EPA and TNRCC allege that they incurred costs in excess of $125 million in completing the remediation at the Sikes Site, and they seek to recover these costs plus interest. Since the Superfund Statute permits joint and several liability and any PRP is theoretically at risk for the entire judgment, the Company intends to vigorously defend this action. In addition, the Company has been named by the EPA and by several state environmental agencies as a PRP at various other federal and state Superfund sites. The Company's exposure in these matters has either been resolved, is properly reserved or is de minimis and is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. On January 13, 2000, the Company received a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) from the TNRCC regarding alleged state and federal air quality violations, some of which include sulfur exceedances, arising out of a June and July 1999 state inspection. The Company believes it has valid legal defenses to the majority of the alleged violations and in any case, the ultimate outcome of the enforcement action, in the opinion of management, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. CROWN CENTRAL: Contests Shareholders' Suit in TX Filed by Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 15, 1998, five shareholders filed a derivative lawsuit in District Court for Harris County, Texas against each of the Company's then-current directors and three of its non-director officers, one of whom was subsequently dismissed. Knox, Et Al. V. Rosenberg, Et Al., C.A. No. 1998-58870. Three of the plaintiff shareholders are locked-out union employees and the remaining two are retired union employees. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, H-99-0123. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, committed "constructive fraud", "abuse of control", and were unjustly enriched. On September 27, 1999 the Court dismissed the action for Plaintiffs' failure to make presuit demand on the Company's Board of Directors or to allege with particularity facts sufficient to demonstrate why demand would have been futile. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend and on November 29, 1999 they filed a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint based on Plaintiffs continuing failure to allege with particularity facts sufficient to excuse presuit demand. The Second Amended Complaint subsequently was withdrawn and refiled as a purported "Restated" Second Amended Complaint. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the "Restated" Second Amended Complaint for Plaintiffs' continuing failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to undertakings received from the individual defendants, the Company is advancing the defense costs and expects to indemnify the defendants to the extent permitted by law and the Company's charter and by-laws. CROWN CENTRAL: Defends Alleged Noncompliance with Clean Air Act in VA --------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 14, 1999, the Company received a notice of violation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency for alleged noncompliance in 1998 with Clean Air Act reformulated gasoline specifications at the Company's Newington and Richmond, Virginia terminals. EPA proposed a penalty of $282,600. The Company believes the allegations have little or no merit and is vigorously defending this enforcement action. CROWN CENTRAL: DOJ Is Considering Action on Alleged Sulfur Violations --------------------------------------------------------------------- During the first quarter of 2000, the Company received notice from the United States Department of Justice that the government is again considering filing a civil action against the Company for the alleged sulfur violations already addressed by an August 31, 1998 TNRCC Agreed Order and for additional alleged violations not covered by that Order. The Company does not believe that the government will prevail if it files such a complaint as the Company already has paid a $1.05 million fine for most of the sulfur violations. Additionally, the Company believes it has valid defenses to the other alleged violations, that the alleged violations are DE MINIMIS in nature, or that the ultimate outcome of the enforcement action, in the opinion of management, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. CROWN CENTRAL: Employees File Suit in TX Alleging Race and Sex Bias ------------------------------------------------------------------- Seven employees at the Pasadena refinery and one at the Tyler refinery have filed a purported class action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging race and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended. Lorretta Burrell, Et Al. Vs. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, C.A. No. 97-CVO-357 (E.D. Tex.). The plaintiffs have now dropped their efforts to certify company-wide classes and have limited their proposed class to certain women and African-Americans who have been employed at the Company's two Texas refineries. The Company is vigorously opposing certification of even this limited class and has filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment against all of the individual claims of all eight named plaintiffs. The Company's collective bargaining agreement with the Paper, Allied- Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Union ("PACE"), formerly the Oil Chemical & Atomic Workers Union covering employees at the Pasadena refinery expired on February 1, 1996. Following a number of incidents apparently intended to disrupt normal operations at the refinery and also as a result of the unsatisfactory status of the negotiations, on February 5, 1996 the Company implemented a lock out of employees in the collective bargaining unit at the Pasadena facility. PACE subsequently filed a number of unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") and all of these charges have been dismissed by the NLRB. Since the lock-out, PACE, the union to which the collective bargaining unit belongs has waged an orchestrated corporate campaign including sponsoring a boycott of the Company's retail facilities and supporting various lawsuits against the Company. The Company has been operating the Pasadena refinery since the lock-out and intends to continue to do so during the negotiation period with the collective bargaining unit. The lock out and negotiations on a new contract continue. CROWN CENTRAL: Faces Shareholders Lawsuit in MD ----------------------------------------------- On March 9, 2000, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland by an individual who purports to represent certain shareholders of the Company against the Company, each of its Directors, and Rosemore, Inc. Maiden V. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Et Al. #24-C-00-001238 (Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland). The Complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Company's shareholders in connection with a merger proposal made by Rosemore, Inc. The case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief or, alternatively, compensatory and/or "rescissory" damages. The Company expects to defend and indemnify the defendants to the extent permitted by law and the Company's charter and by-laws. There have been no proceedings in the case thus far. CROWN CENTRAL: Houston Residents Sue for Damages from Plant Operations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In October 1998, the Company was served in a lawsuit naming it as an additional defendant in an existing lawsuit filed by approximately 5,500 Houston Ship Channel area residents against 11 other refinery and petrochemical plant operators. Crye Et Al. Vs. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., Et Al., 97-24399 (334th Judicial District, Harris Co., Tex.). The plaintiffs claim they are adversely affected by the noise, light, emissions and discharges from defendants' operations and seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief for alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence, and gross negligence. The Court has indicated that it may grant summary judgement against a large majority of the plaintiffs. CROWN CENTRAL: NC Ct Orders Mediation for MTBE Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ On January 8, 1999, five named plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company and 12 other named defendants in Superior Court for New Hanover County, NC, claiming that the defendants are liable for damages caused by MTBE contamination of groundwater. Atlas Alan Maynard, III, et al. vs. Amerada Hess Corporation et al., 99-CV-00068, Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina. MTBE is a gasoline additive that is used by the petroleum industry principally to formulate gasolines that comply with the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The plaintiffs seek to certify two sub-classes - all owners of drinking water wells in the state who wish to have their wells tested at the defendants' expense and all owners of such wells which are contaminated by certain levels of MTBE. On January 20, 2000, the Court held hearings on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court has not issued a ruling on those motions but has ordered the parties to participate in nonbinding mediation. CROWN CENTRAL: Shut in Wells; Negotiates with EPA and DOJ Re Oil Spill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In May 1999, the Company received a notice that the United States Department of Justice planned to bring a civil action against the Company for a Clean Water Act violation arising out of a June 1998 oil spill at a Wyoming exploration and production property. The Company has shut-in all of the wells on the Wyoming leases and no longer operates those properties. The Department of Justice demanded payment of a penalty in the amount of $262,000. The Company has been negotiating with the EPA and the Department of Justice. Environmental remediation of the leases is being completed and the Department of Justice has not yet filed suit. CROWN CENTRAL: TX Suit Re Injuries & Damage from Refinery in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On June 25, 1997, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in District Court for Harris County, Texas by individuals who claim to have suffered personal injuries and property damage from the operation of the Company's Pasadena refinery. Allman, Et Al. Vs. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Et Al., C.A. No. 97-39455 (District Court of Harris County, Texas). This suit seeks unspecified compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages. The plaintiffs have now dropped all class action claims. The matter is in discovery. ECONNECT, INC: Agrees to SEC Injunction, Says the Pomerantz Firm ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following is an announcement by the law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, April 14: eConnect, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board:ECNC) and Thomas S. Hughes, the Company's President, CEO and Chairman, announced on April 13, 2000 that they had agreed to an injunction sought by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the SEC's securities fraud action filed earlier against eConnect. On March 13, 2000, the SEC had halted trading in eConnect stock for two weeks citing concerns about the accuracy of the Company's press releases. When the SEC permitted the resumption of trading in eConnect shares on March 27, 2000, the price of eConnect's common stock fell dramatically by 91%, according to allegations in a complaint filed by Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (http://www.pomerantzlaw.com)on behalf of those persons or entities who purchased the common stock of eConnect during the period between February 22, 2000 and March 13, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Contact: Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, New York Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. Phone: (888) 476-6529 ((888) 4-POMLAW) Internet: agtolan@pomlaw.com FEN-PHEN: Former Users Negative on Proposed AHP Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- The following was released April 14 by Fleming & Associates, L.L.P.: George Fleming of Fleming & Associates, L.L.P., a lead attorney for U.S. consumers who have been harmed by taking the drug combination fen-phen, announced that victims of the diet-pill catastrophe will be relieved to know that all indicators predict that American Home Products' (NYSE: AHP) proposed class action settlement is "doomed." "Despite AHP's hopes for this all to go away, there is no quick fix or easy end to their liability for the harm the company caused to millions of fen-phen users," said George Fleming. "The proposed nationwide settlement for fen-phen damages is simply dead-on-arrival with more than 45,000 Americans choosing to opt out of the proposed agreement. This response from around the country is a landmark in the history of U.S. class action litigation and shows that consumers cannot be duped." In a 1997 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the courts reviewing potential class action cases must make certain that settlements meet a set of strict legal requirements, including -- predominance and typicality -- terms applying to the victims and the harm they have received. "We believe that just as in the class action attempts for asbestos victims, the proposed fen- phen settlement will not stand up to the test of these two criteria," said Fleming. "The countless men and women who have been harmed cannot be lumped together and then brushed aside in a solitary, miserly swoop. The amounts that AHP proposes to pay are clearly inadequate for the injuries sustained." In contrast to the compensation for victims under the settlement agreement, cases around the country have resulted in significant financial damages being awarded to fen-phen plaintiffs. Debbie Lovett, 36, received a reported $2.3 million from AHP, but under the proposed settlement, Ms. Lovett would receive just $6,000 and a refund of $500 for the cost of the medication she took. Again, typical of cases brought against AHP, five people in Mississippi who sued AHP were given settlements for heart related problems by AHP for a reported $150 million. These plaintiffs under the proposed class action would receive a medical screening and a $500 prescription refund. Beginning on May 2, 2000 in Philadelphia, the American public will have the opportunity to follow Fairness Hearings regarding the certification of a tentative class action suit on behalf of fen-phen users. AHP is the drug company that manufactured and marketed Redux and Pondimin, one half of the "Fen-Phen" diet drug combination removed from the market in 1997 when it was revealed that the widely used drug caused valvular heart disease and pulmonary hypertension. Since then, AHP has been sued by thousands of individuals who took the diet drug combination and have been injured as a result of its use. Internal AHP documents show that the company knew of dozens of individuals who had adverse reactions to the drug and yet kept this vital information from the doctors who were prescribing it for years. Contact: George M. Fleming of Fleming & Associates, L.L.P., 713-621-7944, or 800-654-7139. Web site http://www.fleming-law.com HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Austria Is Mired in Wave of Calls to Face up History ----------------------------------------------------------------------- History is catching up on Austria. Over half a century after World War II, the country is mired in an unprecedented wave of calls to face up its past. The latest blow came when an 18-billion-dollar class-action suit was filed in a New York court on behalf of Holocaust victims last Thursday April 13. US attorney Ed Fagan accuses the Austrian government and industry of having profited from property stolen from Jews, forced them to work -- and of continuing today to try to hide the truth. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel denounced the legal action as absurd and counter-productive. "The important thing for us are the victims, and not lawyers," he said. But the action is seen by many as the culmination of Austria's awakening to the reality of its Nazi past. That it should come to this does not surprise some. "I am minded to stretch out the issue," said then Socialist Interior Minister Oskar Helmer in 1945, on the subject of compensating the victims of Nazism. The current government, comprising Schuessel's conservative People's Party and the Freedom Party of controversial politician Joerg Haider, has committed itself to compensating Hazi victims. But it says it wants to wait for the completion of a study by a commission of historians, established in 1998, before proceeding to compensate for property confiscated from Jews by Nazis. The commission has been charged not only with studying confiscations, but also with the unfair and unsystematic way in which compensation has taken place since 1945. Austria has displayed a "very negligent" attitude in this regard, says Eva Blimlinger, the commission's coordinator. The commission estimates at 11 billion schillings (800 million euros/dollars) the total payments so far made by Austria, a figure subject to adjustment for inflation. By comparison, the German finance ministry says the country has paid out 103 billion marks (52.5 billion euros) in compensation since the war. Austria, which was considered the "first victim" of Nazism from 1943 because it was annexed by Hitler into the Third Reich in 1938, only belately admitted its co-responsibility for Nazi crimes. The 1955 treaty which liberated it from the occupying powers included commitments to compensate Jews whose property was confiscated on Austrian soil. Austrian governments over the years have decided to pass legislation to enforce compensation, but this has only served to complicate and delay the process. In total over 30 laws on giving back property and paying compensation have been passed. But the situation remains "ridiculously complicate" and there are virtually no clear rules, says Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, a member of the historians' commission. For example, one law deals at the same time with the persecution of Jews and homes destroyed by bombing. Due to a desperate lack of accommodation, appartments which were being rented have never been given back, "the unjustice of this caused deep feelings" among owners, says Bailer-Galanda. The Jewish community is claiming some 70,000 appartements. The right to be paid pensions which were not received under Nazism has only been accorded to Austrian citizens. Those who lost their nationality after fleeing the country lost all claim on such money. The 90 historians on the commission, who are working on 35 separate projects, are expected to finish their work on compensation claims by 2001. So far they have only completed their work on forced workers, whose number is estimated at 1 million in Austria, of whom 239,000 are believed to be still alive. Maria Schaumayer, former central bank governor who is in charge of the issue, has said she hopes to make the first payouts this year. The government says the US lawsuit risks delaying its compensation program. (Agence France Presse, April 17, 2000) JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Settlement for Derivative Suits in '94 Pending --------------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in December 1994, a series of six actions were commenced as derivative actions on the Company's behalf against Harley J. Greenfield, Fred J. Love, Edward B. Seidner, Bernard Wincig, Michael J. Colnes, Michael Rosen, Al Ferarra, William M. Apfelbaum, Glenn S. Meyers, Lawrence R. Haut, the private company, Jerome I. Silverman, Jerome I. Silverman Company, Selig Zises and BDO Seidman & Co. (each of these individuals and entities is named as a defendant in at least one action) in: (a) the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Philip E. Orbanes V. Harley J. Greenfield, et al., Case No. CV 94-5694 (DRH) and Meyer Okun and David Semel V. Al Ferrara, et al., Case No. CV 95-0080 (DRH); Meyer Okun Defined Benefit Pension Plan, et al. V. Bdo Seidman & Co., Case No. CV 95-1407 (DRH); and Meyer Okun Defined Benefit Pension Plan V. Jerome I. Silverman Company, et. al., Case No. CV 95-3162 (DRH); (b) the Court of Chancery for the County of New Castle in the State of Delaware, entitled Massini V. Harley Greenfield, et. al., Civil Action No. 13936 (WBC); and (c) the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, entitled Meyer Okun Defined Benefit Pension Plan V. Harley J. Greenfield, et. al., Index No. 95-110290. The complaints in each of these actions assert various acts of wrongdoing by the defendants, as well as claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's present and former officers and directors. The Company had entered into settlement agreements as to the derivative litigation subject, in the case of certain of such agreements, to court approval of such settlement by a certain date. Such court approval was not obtained by such date, and in July 1998, the private company exercised its option to withdraw from the settlement. The Company is currently negotiating with the private company with respect to a new settlement. However, there can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached or as to the terms of such settlement. JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Settles Securities Suits Filed in NY in '94, '95 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Between December 6, 1994 and January 5, 1995, the Company was served with eleven class action complaints and six derivative action lawsuits which deal with losses suffered as a result of the decline in market value of the Company's stock as well as the Company having "issued false and misleading statements regarding future growth prospects, sales, revenues and net income". Settlement Of Class Action Litigation On November 30, 1998, the court approved the settlement of a series of 11 class actions commenced in December 1994 against the Company, various of the Company's present and former officers and directors, and certain third parties, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaints in all of these actions alleged that the Company and the other named defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with the press release issued by the Company on or about December 2, 1994. All of these class actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Jennifer Convertibles, Case No. 94 Civ. 5570, pending in the Eastern District of New York. The settlement provides for the payment to certain members of the class and their attorneys of an aggregate maximum amount of $7,000 in cash and preferred stock having a value of $370. The cash portion of the settlement was funded entirely by insurance company proceeds. LENNAR HOMES: Miami Homeowners Denied Class Status -------------------------------------------------- A Miami-Dade circuit judge has denied class certification to a lawsuit filed on behalf of homeowners in the Village of Doral Sands in Miami. The suit, first filed against Lennar Homes and its joint venture partner Doral Park in 1998, alleged that the builder constructed homes on land that had been filled with debris and trash. The named plaintiffs, Antonio and Elizabeth Romanach, alleged in their suit that they found a variety of trash and debris buried in their yard, including metal and glass. In his ruling, Circuit Judge Steve Levine stated that the plaintiffs met only two of the four prerequisites required to be granted class certification. Levine noted that the development has only 113 homes and that of those only 83 homes are affected. As a result, the judge noted that the homeowners have the knowledge and resources necessary to initiate individual actions. Also, the judge said that there may be substantial and important differences between the claims made by the named plaintiffs and those of other homeowners. The [named] plaintiffs, wrote Levine, seem to have much more debris than other property owners. The court said some homeowners found no debris buried on their lots while others found clearly objectionable amounts and, as a result, questions will need to be addressed in individual lawsuits. (Broward Daily Business Review, April 14, 2000) MICROSTRATEGY INC: Berger & Montague Files Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague, P.C. and The Olsen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the stock of MicroStrategy Inc. (Nasdaq:MSTR) between June 11, 1998 and March 20, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges MicroStrategy, Michael Saylor, Sanjun Bansal and Mark S. Lynch with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of l934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that MicroStrategy and certain of its officers and directors reported materially false and misleading financial results throughout the Class Period. During l998 and l999, defendants overstated MicroStrategy's revenues and earnings by improperly recognizing revenue in connection with software sales/service contracts. 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 is 1999 and 1998 results. The Company stated that it will reduce its l999 reported revenue from $205.3 million to between approximately $150 million and $155 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 l998 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: Berger & Montague, P.C. Todd S. Collins, Esquire Arthur Stock, Esquire Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager 215/875-3000 or 888/891-2289 Fax: 215/875-4604 Website: http://home.bm.nete-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or The Olsen Law Firm Kurt Olsen, 202/261-3553 e-mail: kurtolsen@sprintmail.com MICROSTRATEGY, INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in VA -------------------------------------------------------------------- MicroStrategy, Inc. announced that it is the subject of a Securities and Exchange Commission probe regarding the Company's accounting practices. Earlier this year, investors represented by Schiffrin & Barroway filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of MicroStrategy Incorporated (Nasdaq:MSTR) from June 11, 1998 through March 17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Schiffrin & Barroway continues to investigate MicroStrategy's accounting practices. Contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Robert B. Weiser, Esq. 888/299-7706 (toll free) or 610/667-7706 e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com POTOMAC ELECTRIC: Lawsuit Filed over Patuxent River Oil Spill ------------------------------------------------------------- Representing Maryland watermen and local-area businesses that support sport and commercial fishermen, the Washington, D.C. plaintiffs firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on April 14 filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Potomac Electric Power Co. and Terminal Support Services, Inc. The suit alleges these companies acted negligently in failing to prevent the recent Patuxent River oil spill, and in failing to properly respond to the spill. On April 7, 2000, a Pepco pipeline ruptured, spilling an estimated 111,000 gallons of oil onto a 17-mile stretch of the Patuxent River, where it fouled 17 miles of beaches and fishing grounds used by thousands of Southern Maryland residents. The spill has severely disrupted area business, threatened the livelihood of commercial fishermen, and damaged private property. The complaint alleges that Pepco failed to maintain proper equipment to monitor the pipeline and, after the spill, failed to timely respond to the spill. According to Cohen Milstein partner Gary E. Mason, "Pepco had numerous opportunities before and after the rupture to minimize damage to those who rely on the Patuxent River. Pepco simply failed to implement reasonable preventive and response measures." Contact: Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. Deborah Schwartz, 301/897-8838 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in DE ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Qwest Communications International, Inc. was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware seeking to recover damages on behalf of a class consisting of shareholders of U.S. West, Inc. (NYSE:USW) who were solicited by a Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus issued by U.S. West and Qwest, dated September 17, 1999 to vote at a special meeting of stockholders of U.S. West held on November 2, 1999 on the proposed merger between U.S. West and Quest, and held such shares through March 1, 2000; and a class consisting of U.S. West shareholders who held their stock on March 1, 2000. The complaint charges Qwest and Joseph P. Nacchio with violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and liability under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As of March 15, 2000, U.S. West stock was trading at a discount of more than $20 per share to the implied per-share value of the Qwest/U.S. West deal, compared with between $6 and $7 per share before the news of Qwest's negotiations with Deutsche Telekom became public. This discount is particularly harmful to "risk arbitragers." Earlier, after the announcement of the Merger, arbitragers of the Merger Agreement purchased U.S. West stock and simultaneously shorted Qwest stock, seeking to capitalize on a narrow 10% "spread" on the deal. That 10% spread, which was relatively modest, indicated that the consummation of the Merger was not very risky. However, when news of Nacchio's negotiations with Deutsche Telekom became public, and Qwest's stock price rose, while U.S. West's stock price dropped, the spread on the deal widened enormously and many arbitrageurs were forced to liquidate their positions and suffered enormous financial damages. Contact: Mark D. Smilow, David C. Katz or James E. Tullman, (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. TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Lawsuit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cauley & Geller, LLP announced on April 14 that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased publicly traded securities of Terayon Communications Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: TERN) between February 2, 2000 and April 11, 2000 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Terayon and certain of its officers, directors and company insiders with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action involves defendants' dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning, among other things, the certification of the Company's proprietary S-CDMA cable modem technology by CableLabs (the industry regulating organization), the Company's financial condition and their effects on the Company's operations. The complaint alleges that defendants' scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Terayon's business, new product capabilities and acceptability as an industry standard technology, foreseeable product demand, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of Terayon common stock; (ii) allowed defendants to register and/or sell over $439 million worth of Terayon shares at artificially inflated prices via share-for-share acquisitions of other companies, which acquisitions also allowed defendants to appropriate valuable proprietary technologies previously owned by other companies; (iii) allowed Company insiders, several of whom are named as defendants herein, to sell over 71,000 shares of their privately held Terayon common stock, during the Class Period, while in possession of materially adverse, undisclosed information, allowing them to reap proceeds of at least $ 15.9 million; and (iv) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Terayon common stock at artificially inflated prices. Contact: Cauley & Geller, LLP, 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 201, Little Rock, AR 72212, E-mail: CauleyPA@aol.com or 1-888-551-9944 - toll free VISX, INC: Revenues Rise, Contests Securities Suits Ahead --------------------------------------------------------- VISX (Santa Clara, CA) was one of the few tech companies on the Nasdaq market to have its shares rise last Friday, April 14, bolstered by the company's first-quarter earnings report that exceeded Wall Street expectations. Shares rose $1.25, or 9 percent, in early trading, before settling to an increase of $.44 to close at $14.81 on the Nasdaq National Market. Net income was $19.56 million, or $.30 per share, in the quarter, compared with net income of $19.73 million, or $.29 per share, in the same period a year ago. However, the per-share earnings were well above a First Call consensus analysts' estimate of $.27. Wall Street also liked the fact that Visx's revenues rose to $64 million from $53.95 million a year ago. In addition, the developer of eye laser technology performed 17 percent more procedures in the first quarter from the previous quarter, ahead of Robertson Stephens analyst Wade King's 9 percent projection. The analyst wrote in his report that Visx "clearly maintained its dominant share," CBS MarketWatch reported. King upgraded the stock and set a price target of 30 "based upon the strength of the quarterly results" and "compelling valuation." The company said strong growth in shipments of its VisionKey cards boosted results. Shipments grew 17 percent in the quarter from the previous quarter. "The excellent growth in shipment of VisionKey cards ... is, I believe, a key indicator of the health of our business," said Mark Logan, Visx chairman and CEO. "Although it is too early to state that our strategic growth initiative has produced the desired objectives, the indicators at this juncture are positive and on target." But Visx still faces battles ahead. A number of class-action lawsuits have been filed against the company, claiming Visx misled investors to artificially inflate its stock price from March 1999 to February 2000. In one such suit, filed by Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP of New York, claimants say Visx said its revenues, royalties and other business factors would result in earnings per share of $1.70 to $1.80 in 2000. The result was that shares of Visx rose from about $30 in March 1999 to a high of $103 later in the year. "This upsurge in Visx's stock enabled Visx insiders to sell 1.4 million shares of their Visx stock for $97 million in proceeds," the law firm stated last Friday. But the stock crashed in December after an international ruling declared a competitor had not infringed on Visx's patents. "This cast doubt on Visx's competitive position and the ability to maintain its prices," the lawsuit contends. It further notes that Visx contended a limited impact of competition would allow it to maintain a $250 per procedure licensing fee in the United States, which would lead to consistent revenue growth. But on Jan. 19, Visx reported a drop in fourth-quarter revenues compared with the previous year and "exposed the problems" it was having growing its business, according to the suit. Even so, it was not until Feb. 22 that Visx revealed it would reduce its per-procedure fee to $100, causing its stock to drop to as low as $16 on the day. (Medical Industry Today, April 17, 2000) VISX, INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Advises on Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement was issued April 14 by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP: Earlier this year, investors represented by Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of VISX, Inc. (Nasdaq: VISX) from March 1, 1999 through February 22, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). There are only 11 days left for investors to move to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the VISX Inc. securities litigation. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the presumption is that the investor with the largest financial losses should serve as Lead Plaintiff in a securities fraud action. There are numerous benefits for an institutional investor to serve as a Lead Plaintiff. To discuss these benefits, or any other issues related to this litigation, please contact one of Schiffrin & Barroway's Institutional Client Liaisons, Andrew L. Barroway, Esq. or Robert B. Weiser, Esq. To reach Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP call toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com Website at http://www.sbclasslaw.com W.R. GRACE: LCHB Announces Nationwide Suit Re Zonolite Attic Insulation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A nationwide class action lawsuit was filed April 14 in the United States District Court, District of Montana, Missoula Division, against W. R. Grace & Company and others, alleging that Zonolite Attic Insulation installed in thousands of homes throughout the United States threatens the health and safety of home owners. The class action Complaint was brought on behalf of those who own property in the United States in which Zonolite Attic Insulation is installed. The Complaint alleges that Zonolite Attic Insulation contains tremolite, an especially dangerous form of asbestos. Tremolite, the Complaint states, is composed of sharp microscopic needle-like fibers that pierce and lodge in the lining of the lungs. Assaulted lung tissues become inflamed, in time heavily scarred, and ultimately the lungs fail, resulting in death. Disturbance of Zonolite Attic Insulation, the Complaint contends, lofts dangerous levels of asbestos dust, sufficient to cause such diseases as mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, and other potentially fatal diseases. Zonolite Attic Insulation, the Complaint claims, was manufactured using vermiculite originating from Libby, Mont. Libby has recently received national notoriety for hundreds of asbestos-related deaths believed to be caused by exposure to tremolite contained in vermiculite mined near Libby. Grace transported vermiculite ore from Zonolite Mountain in Libby to expansion plants throughout the United States for purposes of manufacturing the finished insulation product, Zonolite Attic Insulation. The Zonolite Attic Insulation manufactured, distributed, and sold by Grace was purchased and installed in attics of thousands of homes, businesses, and other properties located throughout the United States. The dangers of Zonolite Attic Insulation, the Complaint contends, have been known all along by W. R. Grace, and Grace made a calculated business decision to nonetheless continue to sell Zonolite Attic Insulation without any warnings as to dangers posed to home owners. The Complaint asks that the Montana Federal Court issue an order compelling W. R. Grace to pay for a nationwide notification program that warns property owners of the dangers of Zonolite Attic Insulation and advises them of steps they must take to protect themselves from exposure. The Complaint also seeks the creation of a remediation and containment program that compensates home owners for costs they will incur in containing and controlling tremolite dust when they engage in remodeling or maintenance activities that disturb Zonolite Attic Insulation. The Complaint also seeks monetary compensation for property owners for property damages suffered by them. The action has been brought by five law firms, including firms of national prominence in the fields of asbestos litigation, class action practice, and environmental litigation. Those firms are Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, of San Francisco; Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, PA, of Charleston, S.C.; Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., of Washington D.C. and Seattle; Lukins & Annis, P.S., of Spokane, Wash.; and McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & McGarvey, P.C., of Kalispell, Mont. FACT SHEET Plaintiff: The Plaintiffs in the class action are Paul Price, John Prebil and Margery Prebil. Defendants: Defendants in the class action are W. R. Grace & Company (Delaware); W. R. Grace & Company-CONN (Connecticut); W. R. Grace & Co., an association of business entities; and Sealed Air Corporation. Court: The suit was filed April 14, 2000, in the United States District Court, District of Montana, Missoula Division. Case Number: CV-00-71-M-DWM. Assigned Judge: The Honorable Donald W. Molloy. Contact Attorneys: Elizabeth J. Cabraser and Fabrice Vincent at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, in San Francisco, California; Edward J. Westbrook at Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, PA, in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina; Steven Toll at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, in Seattle, Washington; Darrell W. Scott of Lukins & Annis, P.S., in Spokane, Washington; Allan McGarvey of McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & McGarvey, P.C., in Kalispell, Montana. Contact: Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Elizabeth J. Cabraser or Fabrice N. Vincent, 415/956-1000 fvincent@lchb.com or Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. Steven J. Toll, 206/521-0080 (Seattle) Richard S. Lewis, 202/408-4600 (Washington, D.C.) or Lukins & Annis, P.S. Darrell W. Scott, 509/455-9555 or 888/760-7000 dscott@lukins.com or Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, PA Edward Westbrook, 843/216-9113 or McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & McGarvey, P.C. Allan McGarvey, 406/752-5566 YBM MAGNEX: Cross-Border Legal Alliance Creates 'Powerhouse' ------------------------------------------------------------ As has been reported in the CAR, Canadian and U.S. class-action lawyers have decided to co-operate on the civil prosecution of YBM Magnex International Inc., a development seen as key for defrauded shareholders in this country. The CAR has also reported on the judge clearing the way for such action. The National Post talks about the impact of this. An article in the National Post on April 17 says that with a limited pool of eligible North American investors in tany one stock fraud, lawyers involved in cross-border cases in the past have been reluctant to share information and design common strategy. Harvey Strosberg, who is leading a YBM shareholder class action in Canada, said the decision to do so this time will create a tactical powerhouse. 'This is important because the defendants are going to have to fight a war on two fronts,' he said. 'And you know what happens when you fight a war on two fronts. You usually lose.' Mr. Strosberg is also lead counsel in the Bre-X Minerals Ltd. class-action in Canada. In the past, he has vigorously spoken out against a parallel suit in Texas, insisting Canadians who bought shares of Bre-X, a Canadian company, on a Canadian stock exchange belonged exclusively before Canadian courts. Mr. Strosberg said it was not a change of heart that persuaded him to co-operate with U.S. lawyers on YBM -- also a Canadian company traded on a Canadian exchange -- but a more compelling case for collaboration. 'The operation of YBM's head office was in Philadelphia, the auditors did their work in Philadelphia, and it has a much more substantial U.S. connection than any of the other cases, including Bre-X. YBM is an altogether different case and there is no doubt in my mind that some components of U.S. law may apply in this case.' Ironically, the U.S. counsel Mr. Strosberg will be co-operating with on YBM is Paul Yetter, the Houston lawyer who was his Bre-X nemesis, the National Post says. Mr. Yetter said Canadian shareholders will be better off for the unexpected alliance. 'These investors will be getting the best on both sides of the border. We have a common enemy and we will pursue them arm and arm until full justice is done.' It is remarked in the article that lawyers representing YBM's former officers and directors are widely expected to appeal the U.S. judge's ruling on the grounds of international comity, seeking to limit Canadian shareholders' fight for compensation to Canadian courts. The article says that class-action legislation is relatively new in Canada and contains legal hurdles that do not lend themselves to securities class actions and the law is not nearly as potent as in the U.S. with its long history of shareholder activism and use of the courts for redress. It is a fact Mr. Strosberg knows all too well. Despite months of battling, his Bre-X class action has essentially collapsed on legal requirements that made certification extremely difficult, the National Post says. Brian Bellmore, the Toronto lawyer representing Dan Gatti, YBM's former chief financial officer, said the possibility of YBM class actions proceeding simultaneously in Canada and the U.S. raises the troubling spectre of conflicting verdicts. 'We would contend the proper forum for any Canadian residents who bought shares on the Canadian stock exchanges would be in Canada,' said Mr. Bellmore, who indicated he may force Canadians to choose which suit they support in advance of a trial or settlement. (National Post (formerly The Financial Post), April 17, 2000) ********* 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 * * *