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  * * *