/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000509.MBX                  C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                   Tuesday, May 9, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 90


AUTODESK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in CA
BMW: Sp Ct Strikes down Punitive Damages for Non-disclosed Refinishing
CARNEGIE INT'L: Files to Dismiss Securities Suit; Plans to Sue Auditor
CELL PATHWAYS: At Preliminary Stage of Securities Suit Filed '99 in PA
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION: Denial of Training Common among EEOC Lawsuits

FRIEDMAN'S JEWELERS: Customers Seek Class Status Insurance Charges
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Austrian Official Rebuffs US Lawsuit
MIRAGE RESORTS: Faces Stockholders Suit in NV for MGM Merger Agreement
ML MEDIA: Oral Arguments Heard for Limited Partners' Appeal in NY
PACIFIC GATEWAY: Berman, DeValerio & Pease Files Securities Suit in CA

PASMINCO: More Than 1,000 Involved in Fumes Suit in Australia
PLM INTERNATIONAL: '97 Investors Suit Settlement Not Yet Consummated
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Krislov & Associates Files Securities Suit in SC
SAIPAN SWEATSHOP: 20 Gap Protesters Arrested outside Fresno Mall
SOLUTION 6: Aust. Software Co. Extends Elite Offer Again on FTC Review

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Canadian Company Faces New Recalled Heart Valve Suit
STAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Announces Dismissal of Shareholder Suit in CA
STONE & WEBSTER: Berman, DeValerio Files Securities Case in MA
TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in CA
TOBACCO LITIGATION: FL Bill Ensures Industry Can Appeal Jury's Verdict

WHITMAN EDUCATION: Announces Agreement to Resolve Lawsuit over Courses


AUTODESK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in CA
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who bought
Autodesk Inc. (Nasdaq: ADSK) stock between September 14, 1998 and May 4,
1999 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges that Autodesk, certain executives of the Company and
its investment banker violated the securities laws and regulations of
the United States. The Company creates and sells PC design software and
multimedia tools for use in the architectural design, civil engineering,
surveying, mechanical design, mapping, film and video production, video
game development and Web content industries.

The Complaint alleges that to artificially inflate the price of Autodesk
stock, Autodesk, certain of its executives and their investment banker
made very positive but false statements about:  strong continuing demand
for Autodesk's existing AutoCAD R14 product line; strong demand for all
of its products in Europe; Autodesk's successful diversification of its
business due to the strong sales of its "vertical" products resulting in
lessened dependence on its AutoCAD product line and thus the elimination
of the AutoCAD "boom/bust" cycle; the beneficial impact of Autodesk VIP
upgrade program; the lack of any negative impact on Autodesk's business
due to Y2K issues; the successful development and testing and
accelerated commercial release of its new R15/AutoCAD 2000 product; and
the limited dilutive impact of Autodesk's acquisition of Discreet Logic,
all of which would result in the Company achieving F00 (to end Jan. 31,
2000) revenues in excess of $1 billion, earnings per share ("EPS") of
$2.45-$2.55 and 20%-25% yearly EPS growth during F99-F01.

As a result of these positive, yet false statements, the price of
Autodesk stock was artificially inflated to a Class Period high of
$49-7/16 in January 1999. This enabled the Company to both successfully
complete the Discreet Logic acquisition in March 1999 as well as to sell
three million new Autodesk shares to the public at $41 per share for
over$120 million.

On May 4, 2000, defendants stunned the investment community by
announcing that Autodesk F00 results were, in fact, going to be much
worse than earlier forecast based on poor sales of R15/AutoCAD 2000 and
weak sales in Europe. Upon the release of this announcement the
Company's stock price sank by almost 25% in one day to a close of$22-1/4
and later to as low as $19-3/4.

Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Michael Miske, George
Peters, Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Shane T. Rowley, Esq., or Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq. 800-575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com

BMW: Sp Ct Strikes down Punitive Damages for Non-disclosed Refinishing
The case BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, which is published in
Mondaq Business Briefing, and is said in the article to be potentially
one of the most significant cases in recent years for the insurance
industry although BMW had nothing to do with insurance. The Supreme
Court - for the first time ever - found that a punitive damages award
was so excessive as to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

                   The Case of The $2 Million Paint Job

The case arose out of BMW's sale of a new BMW 535i to Dr. Ira Gore
without disclosing that it had refinished some of the surfaces of the
car at its vehicle preparation center before shipping the car to the
dealer. In not disclosing the refinishing, BMW followed its standard
disclosure policy, which provided that repairs costing less than 3% of
the vehicle's suggested retail price would be considered insufficiently
material to necessitate disclosure. BMW had selected the 3% threshold in
1983 after reviewing the various state disclosure statutes then in
existence and concluding that a 3% trigger comported with the strictest
of those statutes.

Dr. Gore happily drove his car for nine months without noticing anything
wrong with the finish. When he took the car to a detailer to make it
look "snazzier," however, the detailer detected signs of refinishing.
After the detailer referred him to a lawyer, Dr. Gore filed suit in
Alabama state court. Based on the testimony of Dr. Gore's "expert" (a
disgruntled former BMW dealer) that even perfect, factory-quality
refinishing diminishes the value of a car by 10% of its purchase price,
the jury awarded Dr. Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages. And because
Dr. Gore's counsel had identified approximately 1,000 other vehicles
that BMW had sold throughout the country without disclosure of
refinishing, he asked for, and the jury awarded, $4,000 per car in
punitive damages, for a total of $4,000,000.

On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the punitive damages
reduced to $2 million, with no explanation as to how it arrived at that
particular figure. The remitted punitive award was still 500 times the
size of any possible injury to Dr. Gore. In early 1995, the Supreme
Court agreed to hear the case. Sixteen months later, the court struck
down the punitive damages award by a 5-4 vote.

                        The Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court began its analysis by making clear that "when (a
punitive damages) award can fairly be characterized as 'grossly
excessive' in relation to (the State's legitimate interests in
retribution and deterrence) . . . it enter(s) the zone of arbitrariness
that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Court next held that the State's legitimate interests end at its
borders: "(P)rinciples of state sovereignty and comity" embodied in the
Constitution dictate that "Alabama does not have the power . . . to
punish BMW for conduct that was lawful where it occurred and that had no
impact on Alabama or its residents. Nor may Alabama impose sanctions on
BMW in order to deter conduct that is lawful in other jurisdictions."
(Because Dr. Gore had introduced no evidence that BMW's 3% threshold was
unlawful elsewhere in the country and because BMW had submitted evidence
that its conduct, in fact, was lawful in many other states, the Court
did not decide "whether one State may properly attempt to change a
tortfeasor's unlawful conduct in another State."

Having concluded that the Alabama jury had no right to attempt to force
BMW to change its policy nationwide, the Supreme Court turned to
determining whether the $2 million award was excessive in relationship
to Alabama's legitimate interests in regulating BMW's conduct in
Alabama. The Court conceptualized the inquiry as involving a question of
foreseeability, stating: "Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in
our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair
notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment but
also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose." The Court
then identified three "guideposts" as being particularly useful for
evaluating whether a defendant could be said to have adequate notice of
the magnitude of the jury-imposed penalties that might be assessed
against it: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct; (2) the
ratio of punitive damages to the actual or potential harm to the
plaintiff; and (3) the civil penalties authorized or imposed for
comparable misconduct. Applying these three yardsticks, the Supreme
Court concluded that the $2 million punishment did not pass
constitutional muster.

The article in Mondaq says that the Court's opinion leaves many key
issues in punitive damages cases unresolved. Nevertheless, there can be
no doubt that BMW has dramatically changed the litigation landscape. The
article goes on with a review on the case. (Mondaq Business Briefing,
May 5, 2000)

CARNEGIE INT'L: Files to Dismiss Securities Suit; Plans to Sue Auditor
Carnegie International Corporation said on May 5 that it will file a
Motion to Dismiss the first amended Consolidated Complaint (filed March
21, 2000) brought against the company and several of its officers and
directors by certain of its shareholders.

Carnegie said that, among other issues, the Motion to Dismiss states
"the consolidated complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which
relief may be granted, and fails to state with particularity facts
giving rise to a strong inference that any defendant acted with the
state of mind required to prove a violation of ss. 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Exchange Commission
Rule 10-B; it fails to state with particularity each statement alleged
to be misleading or to set forth in detail the reasons why each such
statement is supposedly misleading; and, to the extent that the
Consolidated Complaint makes allegations based upon the plaintiff's
information and belief, it fails to state with particularity the facts
on which any of those beliefs are purportedly formed."

The company noted that litigation is always subject to uncertainties,
which are outside of its control. Hence, although it believes its Motion
to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint makes a compelling argument, it
cannot, with any reasonable degree of certainty, state whether it is
likely or unlikely to be granted. The complaint may be found in its
entirety at Carnegie's Web site (www.carnegieint.com).

                     Actions vs. Grant Thornton

Carnegie also announced that it has retained the law firms of William H.
Murphy, Jr., and Associates P.A. of Baltimore, and Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Finney, Lewis, McManus, Watson and Sperando of Stuart, Florida,
who are preparing to file suit against Grant Thornton LLP, the company's
former independent auditor, as well as several Grant Thornton partners
and employees.

The company also stated that certain of its shareholders have filed a
class action complaint against Grant Thornton, LLP. The suit was filed
on April 28, 2000, in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, and alleges that Grant Thornton violated Federal securities
laws while serving as Carnegie's independent auditor. The suit further
alleges that the company's financial statements for fiscal years 1997
and 1998, prepared by Grant Thornton and which received unqualified
opinions from Grant Thornton, were not in compliance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), as Grant Thornton had opined.

Carnegie International Corporation is an Internet support and computer
telephony holding company with specialization in telecommunications
products, services and distribution, and in E-Commerce and EDI.

CELL PATHWAYS: At Preliminary Stage of Securities Suit Filed '99 in PA
In February and March of 1999, five stockholder class actions were filed
against Cell Pathways Holdings Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania seeking unspecified damages on behalf of various classes
of persons, including all persons who purchased Company Common Stock
during certain periods in 1998 and 1999. The complaints alleged that the
Company made false and misleading statements about the efficacy and
near-term commercialization of the Company's lead drug candidate which
had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's
Common Stock. These actions were consolidated into one action in April
1999, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in late June 1999
asserting a class period extending from October 7, 1998 to February 2,
1999. The litigation is at a very preliminary stage. The Company
believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation.

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION: Denial of Training Common among EEOC Lawsuits
Many training managers overlook the fact that the same Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requirements that govern hiring, firing
and promotions also apply to their training programs. In fact, the
denial of training opportunities is now a common thread among EEOC
lawsuits for gender, disability, and age discrimination. In a recent
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case against General Motors, the
claimant charged that, in addition to terminating him, GM denied him
training because of his disability (HIV/AIDS). A consent decree awarded
the claimant $ 7,000 in back pay and $ 28,000 in compensatory damages
(EEOC v. Add-Staff, Inc. and General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
No. 96-70840, E.D. Mich.) In a similar case, the claimant charged that
Big Rivers Electric Corp. failed to assign the full range of duties and
denied him training. A settlement agreement provided for a $ 10,000
award (EEOC v. Big Rivers Electric Corp. & IBEW Local 1701, Civil Action
No. 94-0219-0, W.D. Ky.)

Class action suits alleging a pattern of discriminatory training
practices over time are also finding their way onto the EEOC court
docket. Both CBS and Mitsubishi Motors have been hit with gender and
race discrimination lawsuits that include, among other charges,
allegations that the employers consistently denied training to women and
people of color.

Training managers must prevent discrimination in their programs based on
four main Equal Employment Opportunity criteria, according to The Legal
Handbook for Trainers, Speakers, and Consultants, by Attorney Patricia
Eyres (McGraw-Hill, New York City).

                             Disparate treatment

Training is discriminatory if a trainee is treated differently than a
similarly situated co-trainee. This means training programs can be
problematic if they:

* Exclude an age or gender group from strenuous safety training;

* Prevent employees with high blood pressure from physically demanding
  training but allow other disabled employees to participate;

* Give white employees on-the-job training and require another ethnic
  group to go to a training facility for the same training.

Even though the differentiation in training might be well-intentioned
and without malicious intent, it's still discriminatory, Eyres says.

                             Adverse impact

If an otherwise neutral training practice or policy has an adverse
impact on a protected group, it's discriminatory. Example: Post-training
testing that disabled trainees may not be able to complete, even though
their disability doesn't prevent them from performing the essential
functions of their job.

                Continuing past discriminatory practices

Past training practice may dictate that you select training participants
based on employee referrals before you place other employees in a
particular program. If such a system singles out males or Caucasians
because of past discriminatory practices, Eyres notes, then employee
referrals tend to continue to single out males and whites.

                  Harassment/hostile training environments

Just like in the workplace, a hostile training environment allows slurs,
insults and pranks that might offend training participants based on
race, sexuality, age, etc.

                      What Traning Managers Should Do

It is important that the training selection system is as objective as
possible and lends itself to consistent enforcement. Eyres recommends:

* Publicizing all training opportunities uniformly;

* Establish job-related criteria for training programs and an objective
  schedule based on the areas of highest need and be consistent because
  it is often impossible to accommodate all employees who want or need
  training at once.

* Make clear to employees the requirements for admission to the

* Establish objective qualification standards for skills training
  programs, including prerequisites (prior training, experience, skills

* Make consistent explanations for all employees who request, and are
  denied training;

* To avoid age discrimination in training, says Eyres, banish all
  stereotypes from your department, i.e. older workers are infirm,
  resist change, cost too much to train, are overpaid, etc. Many of
  these stereotypes are not only wrong-headed thinking, they're legally
  risky as well.

* To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), says Eyres,
  training managers must not refuse to train an employee with a
  ''covered disability.'' To be protected, an employee must meet the
  ADA's tests for a covered disability and still be otherwise qualified
  to perform the job.

* That sexual harassment has no place in the training forum goes
  without saying. It's the training manager's responsibility
  particularly in cases where training is mandatory and no escape is
  possible to keep the environment free of any suggestion of verbal,
  physical, or visual harassment, even when the perpetrator insists
  it's in jest. The primary objective should be to stop the offending
  behavior and prevent any form of retaliation against the complaining
  employee, says Eyres. (Managing Training and Development, May 2000)

FRIEDMAN'S JEWELERS: Customers Seek Class Status Insurance Charges
Two customers of Friedman's Jewelers are seeking class-action status for
a lawsuit accusing the Georgia-based company of illegally charging them
for insurance. The lawsuit filed last Thursday in Kanawha County Circuit
Court by James Dunlap and Stephanie Gibson seeks to represent all West
Virginians allegedly bilked by Savannah, Ga. -based Friedman's.

Friedman's already has agreed to repay about 4,000 customers who bought
insurance on up to 15,000 financed purchases without knowing it. It also
faces a wrongful-firing lawsuit filed by two former workers.

The latest lawsuit names the company, several local managers, and
Miami-based American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida. The lawsuit
alleges the insurer helped Friedman's offer insurance for its jewelry.

Dunlap purchased and financed a ring from Friedman's in September.
Gibson did the same in December 1997. "Neither knew about nor consented
to the purchase" of several different insurance policies added to their
bills, the lawsuit said. Class-action status would allow anyone with
claims against Friedman's to join the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by the Charleston law firms of Bailey & Glasser
and the Grubb Law Group. The plaintiffs' hometowns were unavailable.
Grubb also represents the two former workers who sued Friedman's two
weeks ago.

Last Thursday's settlement with the state Attorney General's Office
requires Friedman's to refund as much as $1.5 million to West Virginia
customers who were sold insurance at stores in Beckley, Bluefield and
Charleston by sales associates who were not licensed insurance agents.
The added charges were for credit life, credit disability and property

The store has agreed to stop selling insurance until the company and its
employees are licensed to sell in West Virginia. Once licensed,
employees will be required to verbally ask customers if they want the
insurance. (The Associated Press, May 8, 2000)

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Austrian Official Rebuffs US Lawsuit
Austria cannot be legally forced to pay compensation to victims of
Nazism, the official responsible for the issue said in an interview
Monday, rebuffing a billion-dollar US lawsuit. Maria Schaumayer said US
lawyer Ed Fagan's 18 billion dollar class action law suit on behalf of
Nazi victims was not only "malicious" but also unviable, according to
Austria's constitution. "Article 21 and 26 of the state's constitution
make it clear that no claims can be put forward against Austria. A
contribution cannot be forced either by a domestic court or by a foreign
one," she told the weekly magazine Format. "We are making a voluntary
contribution, and it will remain voluntary."

Fagan's lawsuit, launched last month, seeks compensation both from
Austrian companies which were involved in forced labour, and the
Austrian state itself.

Schaumayer referred notably to an agreement signed by the four occupying
allied powers in 1955 which lifted Austria's financial obligations.
"Austria is not the legal descendent of the Third Reich and it did not
wage the devastating war," she said. Schaumayer defended her plan to pay
a modest six billion schillings (430 million euros) in compensation --
and urged that Austria did not bear the same responsibility as Germany
for the Nazi regime and its atrocities.

Fagan says the lowest sum he will accept in compensation for forced
labourers is 60 billion schillings, 10 times the amount Schaumayer has

An estimated one million people were compelled to work in Austria
between 1938 and 1945, of whom 150,000 are reportedly still alive. Some
historians argue that their labour made Austria's economy what it is
today. (Agence France Presse, May 8, 2000)

MIRAGE RESORTS: Faces Stockholders Suit in NV for MGM Merger Agreement
On March 28, 2000, a stockholder filed a class action complaint against
Mirage Resorts Inc. and the Company's directors in District Court for
Clark County, Nevada. The complaint alleges that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to our stockholders in approving the merger
agreement with MGM Grand by failing to maximize the value that
stockholders will receive in the merger. In particular, the complaint
alleges that the merger agreement grants Stephen A. Wynn the right,
under certain circumstances, to purchase fine art from the Company at
prices significantly less than a buyer might pay on the open market. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, including an "appropriate evaluation"
of the artwork and orders enjoining the defendants from breaching their
fiduciary duties and requiring Mr. Wynn to account to stockholders for
all damages which they may suffer as a result of sales of Company
artwork to him. On April 21, 2000, the plaintiff filed a motion to
impose a constructive trust on the Company's artwork.

ML MEDIA: Oral Arguments Heard for Limited Partners' Appeal in NY
On August 29, 1997, a purported class action was commenced in New York
Supreme Court, New York County, on behalf of the limited partners of ML
Media Partners LP, against ML Media, its general partner, Media
Management Partners (the "General Partner"), the General Partner's two
partners, RP Media Management ("RPMM") and ML Media Management Inc.
("MLMM"), Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch"). The action concerns ML Media's
payment of certain management fees and expenses to the General Partner
and the payment of certain purported fees to an affiliate of RPMM.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege breach of the Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership (the "Partnership Agreement"), breach
of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment by the General Partner in
that the General Partner allegedly: (1) improperly deferred and accrued
certain management fees and expenses in an amount in excess of $14.0
million, (2) improperly paid itself such fees and expenses out of
proceeds from sales of Registrant assets, and (3) improperly paid
MultiVision Cable TV Corp., an affiliate of RPMM, supposedly duplicative
fees in an amount in excess of $14.4 million.

With respect to Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, MLMM and RPMM,
plaintiffs claim that these defendants aided and abetted the General
Partner in the alleged breach of the Partnership Agreement and in the
alleged breach of the General Partner's fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs
seek, among other things, an injunction barring defendants from paying
themselves management fees or expenses not expressly authorized by the
Partnership Agreement, an accounting, disgorgement of the alleged
improperly paid fees and expenses, and compensatory and punitive
damages. Defendants believe that they have good and meritorious defenses
to the action, and vigorously deny any wrongdoing with respect to the
alleged claims. Accordingly, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
and each claim for relief therein.

On March 3, 1999, the New York Supreme Court issued an order granting
defendants' motion and dismissing plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety,
principally on the grounds that the claims are derivative and plaintiffs
lack standing to bring suit because they failed to make a pre-litigation
demand on the General Partner. Plaintiffs have both appealed this order
and moved, inter alia, for leave to amend their complaint in order to
re-assert certain of their claims as derivative claims on behalf of
Registrant. The appeal and the motion for leave to amend are pending.
Defendants have served their brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing
that the court should affirm the Supreme Court's order dismissing
plaintiffs' complaint. Oral argument of the appeal is scheduled for May
2000. Defendants have also served papers in opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. Oral argument has
been heard and the parties are awaiting a decision.

ML Media says the Partnership Agreement provides for indemnification, to
the fullest extent provided by law, for any person or entity named as a
party to any threatened, pending or completed lawsuit by reason of any
alleged act or omission arising out of such person's activities as a
General Partner or as an officer, director or affiliate of either RPmm,
MLMM or the General Partner, subject to specified conditions. In
connection with the purported class action filed on August 29, 1997, ML
Media has received notices of requests for indemnification from the
following defendants named therein: the General Partner, RPMM, MLMM,
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch.

PACIFIC GATEWAY: Berman, DeValerio & Pease Files Securities Suit in CA
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP announces that Pacific Gateway Exchange
Inc. (Nasdaq:PGEX) was charged in a securities class action with
misleading investors about its financial condition and business
prospects. The case was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Pacific
Gateway during the period May 13, 1999, through and including March 31,
2000 (the "Class Period").

The action alleges that Pacific Gateway and certain of its officers
violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's publicly reported
earnings during the Class Period. On March 31, 2000, Pacific Gateway
announced that it was adjusting its net income and earnings per share
and revising its quarterly results for 1999. The action seeks to recover
damages on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Pacific Gateway common stock during the Class Period.

Contact: Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP Alicia Duff, Esq. at (800)
516-9926. Jennifer Abrams, Esq. at (415) 433-3200

PASMINCO: More Than 1,000 Involved in Fumes Suit in Australia
More than 1,000 people will take part in legal action against lead and
zinc miner Pasminco, in one of the largest class actions in Australia.
Sydney firm Coleman and Greig launched the action in February alleging
Pasminco wrongfully permitted emissions of noxious fumes, vapour and
gases containing lead, sulphur dioxide and other toxic pollutants into
the air around its smelters at Cockle Creek in New South Wales and Port
Pirie in South Australia.

The case was instigated on behalf of Roslyn Cook and her daughter
Samantha, 8, who lived at Boolaroo, near the Cockle Creek smelter, from
1989 to 1998. However, 1,082 people are now involved in the class action
following a public appeal by the law firm to identify people allegedly
affected by emissions from the smelters.

A spokeswoman for lawyer Paul Gambin said it was one of the largest
class actions in Australia. The matter is set to go before the Federal
Court in Sydney, when the company is expected to raise a technical
argument over whether the action can be brought under the Trades
Practices Act. "It is the subject of technical argument," the
spokeswoman said. "Pasminco can argue all the technicalities they like
but it doesn't take away from the fact that the community approached us
for help." The action against Pasminco alleges the company wrongfully
permitted emissions of noxious fumes, vapour and gases containing lead,
sulphur dioxide and other toxic pollutants into the air around the two
smelters. It argues the toxic pollutants caused a range of symptoms from
headaches and nausea to behavioural problems, intellectual disabilities
and asthma to tumours and cancers. It further alleges the emissions
impacted on the value of property around the smelters. (AAP Newsfeed,
May 8, 2000)

PLM INTERNATIONAL: '97 Investors Suit Settlement Not Yet Consummated
The Company and various of its wholly owned subsidiaries are named as
defendants in a lawsuit filed as a purported class action in January
1997 in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Mobile, Alabama, Case No.
CV-97-251 (the Koch action). The named plaintiffs are six individuals
who invested in PLM Equipment Growth Fund IV (Fund IV), PLM Equipment
Growth Fund V (Fund V), PLM Equipment Growth Fund VI (Fund VI), and PLM
Equipment Growth & Income Fund VII (Fund VII) (the Partnerships), each a
California limited partnership for which the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, PLM Financial services, Inc. (FSI), acts as the General
Partner. The complaint asserts causes of action against all defendants
for fraud and deceit, suppression, negligent misrepresentation,
negligent and intentional breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege that each defendant owed
plaintiffs and the class certain duties due to their status as
fiduciaries, financial advisors, agents, and control persons. Based on
these duties, plaintiffs assert liability against defendants for
improper sales and marketing practices, mismanagement of the
Partnerships, and concealing such mismanagement from investors in the
Partnerships. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, as well
as punitive damages, and have offered to tender their limited
partnership units back to the defendants.

In March 1997, the defendants removed the Koch action from the state
court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division (Civil Action No. 97-0177-BH-C) based on the
court's diversity jurisdiction. In December 1997, the court granted
defendants motion to compel arbitration of the named plaintiffs' claims,
based on an agreement to arbitrate contained in the limited partnership
agreement of each Partnership. Plaintiffs appealed this decision, but in
June 1998 voluntarily dismissed their appeal pending settlement of the
Koch action, as discussed below.

In June 1997, the Company and the affiliates who are also defendants in
the Koch action were named as defendants in another purported class
action filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, San Francisco,
California, Case No. 987062 (the Romei action). The plaintiff is an
investor in Fund V, and filed the complaint on her own behalf and on
behalf of all class members similarly situated who invested in the
Partnerships. The complaint alleges the same facts and the same causes
of action as in the Koch action, plus additional causes of action
against all of the defendants, including alleged unfair and deceptive
practices and violations of state securities law. In July 1997,
defendants filed a petition in federal district court under the Federal
Arbitration Act seeking to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims. In
October 1997, the district court denied the Company's petition, but in
November 1997, agreed to hear the Company's motion for reconsideration.
Prior to reconsidering its order, the district court dismissed the
petition pending settlement of the Romei action, as discussed below. The
state court action continues to be stayed pending such resolution.

In February 1999 the parties to the Koch and Romei actions agreed to
settle the lawsuits, with no admission of liability by any defendant,
and filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the court. The settlement is
divided into two parts, a monetary settlement and an equitable
settlement. The monetary settlement provides for a settlement and
release of all claims against defendants in exchange for payment for the
benefit of the class of up to $6.6 million. The final settlement amount
will depend on the number of claims filed by class members, the amount
of the administrative costs incurred in connection with the settlement,
and the amount of attorneys' fees awarded by the court to plaintiffs'
attorneys. The Company will pay up to $0.3 million of the monetary
settlement, with the remainder being funded by an insurance policy. For
settlement purposes, the monetary settlement class consists of all
investors, limited partners, assignees, or unit holders who purchased or
received by way of transfer or assignment any units in the Partnerships
between May 23, 1989 and June 29, 1999. The monetary settlement, if
approved, will go forward regardless of whether the equitable settlement
is approved or not.

The equitable settlement provides, among other things, for: (a) the
extension (until January 1, 2007) of the date by which FSI must complete
liquidation of the Partnerships' equipment, (b) the extension (until
December 31, 2004) of the period during which FSI can reinvest the
Partnerships' funds in additional equipment, (c) an increase of up to
20% in the amount of front-end fees (including acquisition and lease
negotiation fees) that FSI is entitled to earn in excess of the
compensatory limitations set forth in the North American Securities
Administrator's Association's Statement of Policy; (d) a one-time
repurchase by each of Funds V, VI and VII of up to 10% of that
partnership's outstanding units for 80% of net asset value per unit; and
(e) the deferral of a portion of the management fees paid to an
affiliate of FSI until, if ever, certain performance thresholds have
been met by the Partnerships. Subject to final court approval, these
proposed changes would be made as amendments to each Partnership's
limited partnership agreement if less than 50% of the limited partners
of each Partnership vote against such amendments. The limited partners
will be provided the opportunity to vote against the amendments by
following the instructions contained in solicitation statements that
will be mailed to them after being filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The equitable settlement also provides for payment
of additional attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs' attorneys from
Partnership funds in the event, if ever, that certain performance
thresholds have been met by the Partnerships. The equitable settlement
class consists of all investors, limited partners, assignees or unit
holders who on June 29, 1999 held any units in Funds V, VI, and VII, and
their assigns and successors in interest.

The court preliminarily approved the monetary and equitable settlements
in June 1999. The monetary settlement remains subject to certain
conditions, including notice to the monetary class and final approval by
the court following a final fairness hearing. The equitable settlement
remains subject to certain conditions, including: (a) notice to the
equitable class, (b) disapproval of the proposed amendments to the
partnership agreements by less than 50% of the limited partners in one
or more of Funds V, VI, and VII, and (c) judicial approval of the
proposed amendments and final approval of the equitable settlement by
the court following a final fairness hearing. No hearing date is
currently scheduled for the final fairness hearing. The Company
continues to believe that the allegations of the Koch and Romei actions
are completely without merit and intends to continue to defend this
matter vigorously if the monetary settlement is not consummated.

The Company is involved as plaintiff or defendant in various other legal
actions incidental to its business. Management does not believe that any
of these actions will be material to the financial condition of the

SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Krislov & Associates Files Securities Suit in SC
The law firm of Krislov & Associates, Ltd. announces that a class action
suit (3:00-1394-17) alleging securities fraud has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Columbia Division against Safety-Kleen Corp. and certain of its officers
and directors, by the law firm Krislov & Associates, Ltd. The case was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased Safety-Kleen common stock
during the period July 9, 1997 through March 6, 2000 inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Safety-Kleen and certain of its directors and
executive officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading
financial statements that materially overstated the Company's revenues
and earnings during the fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 and the first
quarter of fiscal year 2000. On March 6, 2000, Safety-Kleen shocked the
market by announcing that it "has initiated an internal investigation of
its prior reported financial results and certain of its accounting
policies and practices following receipt by the Company's Board of
Directors of information alleging possible accounting irregularities
that may have affected the previously reported financial results of the
Company since fiscal year 1998." On March 8th the Company's independent
auditors notified the Company that they were withdrawing their audit
opinions for the years ended August 31, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

Contact: Clinton A. Krislov or Michael R. Karnuth, both of Krislov &
Associates, Ltd., 312-606-0500

SAIPAN SWEATSHOP: 20 Gap Protesters Arrested outside Fresno Mall
Twenty people demonstrating in Fresno against alleged working conditions
at Gap Inc.'s factories in Saipan were arrested outside a shopping mall
after refusing police orders to leave.

About 50 protesters had gathered outside the Fashion Fair Mall last
Saturday May 6 to protest what they claim is the clothing retailer's use
of "slave labor" at factories in the Northern Mariana Islands. Some
demonstrators wore T-shirts that spelled out the word "Sweatshops,"
according to organizer Mark Stout. When 20 of the protesters defied
orders to leave the mall's property, they were arrested on trespassing
charges. They were released after signing citations ordering them to
appear in court on July 5.

The Gap is one of several U.S. retailers facing a federal class-action
lawsuit brought by garment workers over manufacturing conditions in

In a recent statement, the company said: "We are deeply concerned by the
allegations in the lawsuits. We simply do not, and will not, tolerate
the type of conduct alleged in factories where we do business." Stout
said the Fashion Fair mall was chosen because it is one of the largest
outlets in the Fresno area featuring the Gap.  (The San Francisco
Chronicle, MAY 8, 2000)

SOLUTION 6: Aust. Software Co. Extends Elite Offer Again on FTC Review
Solution 6 Holdings Ltd has announced that it has again extended its
$11.00 per share takeover offer for US-based information group Elite
Information Group Inc. Solution 6 said the offer, which is currently
being reviewed by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), will now expire
at 1700 New York City time on Wednesday May 10, 2000. "Elite and
Solution 6 have agreed not to terminate the pending merger agreement
without cause prior to the expiration of the offer as extended,"
Solution 6 said in a statement.

The latest extension of the bid follows advice from the FTC's Bureau of
Competition that it intends to recommend that the FTC challenge the
transaction. "Although the Bureau of Competition remains opposed to the
transaction, the parties have agreed to extend the offer to continue
discussions in an effort to address the Commission's concerns," Solution
6 said. The latest extension follows a series of setbacks for the
Australian software company, with the firm announcing last Friday that
it believes its proposed merger with Sausage Software Ltd will not go
ahead. Sausage said that it deemed the bid unacceptable due to recent
events, and the drop in Solution 6's shares price.

The company has also had to extend the Elite offer several times since
the bid in December last year because of the FTC review. The FTC
requested information on the deal after a US law firm, Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP launched a class action against the
companies. The firm said Elite directors, by entering into the merger
agreement had violated their fiduciary duty to shareholders. (AAP
Newsfeed, May 8, 2000)

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Canadian Company Faces New Recalled Heart Valve Suit
A woman who received two St. Jude Medical Inc. heart valves that were
later recalled was to file suit Monday May 8 against the company in
Ramsey County District Court. Linda Baez, 43, of Dedham, Mass., is
seeking compensation for pain and suffering and greatly increased
medical bills from extra surgeries she underwent because of the faulty
devices. Baez is accusing the Little Canada company with product
liability, breach of warranty, negligence, misrepresentation, fraud and
false advertising.

Her lawsuit will be the second filed against St. Jude since it recalled
the silver-coated Silzone heart valve in January after determining the
device had leakage problems.

A California law firm filed a class-action lawsuit against the company
in April. The suit seeks compensation for medical monitoring of the
device to detect problems in the 12,000 U.S. citizens who have received
it. An additional 24,000 Silzone valves have been implanted outside the
United States.

Baez received her first Silzone valve in April 1999. Leakage was
discovered within a few months, and she had a second surgery involving
the Silzone valve in November. That valve is now leaking too. When St.
Jude recalled the valves, the company said clinical trials showed 2
percent of the devices leaked, compared with 1 percent of all its
valves. (The Associated Press, May 8, 2000)

STAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Announces Dismissal of Shareholder Suit in CA
STAR Telecommunications, Inc. (Nasdaq:STRX) announced on May 8 that two
class action shareholder lawsuits, brought against STAR and its Board of
Directors by TL Pura and William Ain, have been dismissed by the Santa
Barbara Superior Court. The suits alleged that STAR and its Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to
take actions necessary to attain a higher valuation for the company than
provided for in the World Access merger. The complaints, among other
things, sought to block that merger. In response to these suits, STAR
filed Demurrers, seeking to have the suits dismissed. In the course of
the Demurrer hearing on Friday, May 5, 2000, a Santa Barbara Superior
Court judge granted STAR's Demurrers without leave to amend, effectively
dismissing the matters.

STONE & WEBSTER: Berman, DeValerio Files Securities Case in MA
Stone & Webster, Inc. (NYSE: SW) was charged with issuing a series of
false and misleading statements about the financial condition and
business prospects of the Company in a shareholder class action filed by
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on May 8, 2000. The case, which alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Stone & Webster during the period of April 27, 1999
through and including April 28, 2000 (the "Class Period") and who
suffered losses on their investments. Named as defendants are Stone &
Webster, H. Kerner Smith and Thomas Langford. The case involves a
manipulation of financial statements in which, among other acts of
deception, defendants knowingly or recklessly overstated S&W's results
of operations, revenues, expenses, net worth and income for the fiscal
year 1999.

The complaint claims that, during the Class Period, Stone & Webster and
the defendants assured investors that the Company's earnings were
increasing each quarter. Indeed, the defendants stated that Stone &
Webster was experiencing record revenues and income. On April 30, 2000,
the Company dropped a bombshell on investors when it was disclosed that
it will restate its 1999 financial results. In truth, the Company's
earnings were not in the amounts that had been represented by the
Company during fiscal 1999 because defendants had improperly allocated
revenue and expenses in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP").

Contact: Michael. M. Sullivan, Esq. of Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP,

TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in CA
On May 5, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of investors who bought Terayon Communications
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:TERN) stock between February 2, 2000 and April 11,
2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit charges Terayon and several of its top officers and
directors with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the
United States. 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 Cablelabs (the industry regulating organization), the
Company's financial condition and their effects on the Company's

The complaint alleges that defendants' scheme: (i) deceived that
investing public regarding Terayons' business, new product capabilities
and acceptability as an industry standard technology, foreseeable
product demand, growth, operations and 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 in the action, 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: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Michael Miske, George
Peters, Gregory Nespole, Esq., Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. or Shane T.
Rowley, Esq. (800) 575-0735 http://www.whafh.comwhafh@aol.com

TOBACCO LITIGATION: FL Bill Ensures Industry Can Appeal Jury's Verdict
The tobacco industry will face a greatly reduced risk of bankruptcy, at
least for the time being, when a Florida class-action case resumes next
week. Cigarette makers won a possibly crucial victory last Friday when
the Florida Legislature passed a bill that would cap the bond they would
have to post to appeal a jury verdict. Gov. Jeb Bush is expected to sign
the bill into law.

A jury in Miami is expected to begin considering punitive damages
against cigarette makers May 15 in a case that represents as many as
500,000 sick smokers and ex-smokers in Florida. Last month, the jury
became the first to decide in favor of smokers as a class when it
ordered compensatory damages.

The jury's decision on punitive damages could take weeks. Under current
Florida law, damages are not supposed to be so large that they force a
company into bankruptcy. Defendants who appeal a verdict are required to
post a bond equal to the size of the potential judgment, plus interest.

The new Florida legislation, which the state House and Senate passed
unanimously, caps at $ 100 million the bond the industry would have to
post while it appealed a verdict.

The jury still could assess damages of $ 100 billion or more, an amount
that could eventually drive the industry into declaring bankruptcy. An
appeal could take a year. But the cap on the bond "eliminates the one
looming bankruptcy threat against the industry," says Matthew Myers,
president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. He says the industry
still faces other legal threats, including a huge federal lawsuit, but
the pending case is the most immediate.

"It's very significant," says William Ohlemeyer, associate general
counsel of Philip Morris, the nation's largest cigarette maker. "It will
allow us to proceed to the appellate court."

"The legislation is helpful to the industry but doesn't completely
remove the threat of bankruptcy," says David Adelman, a tobacco industry
analyst at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. He expects the validity of the
new law to be questioned but upheld, protecting the cigarette makers
through the appeals process. In the end, though, the tobacco companies
still could lose on appeal, Adelman says. At this point, he adds, "a lot
would have to go wrong" for bankruptcy to result.

Some Florida lawmakers say they wanted to protect their state's share of
tobacco settlement funds; they argue that the money could be at risk if
the industry went bankrupt. To settle lawsuits against it, the industry
has agreed to pay states $ 246 billion over 25 years. Florida is to
receive $ 13 billion of the total.

Bankruptcy would not necessarily end the payments, which could continue
under court order. But Ohlemeyer says that states would have to make
their cases in bankruptcy court along with other creditors: "The
question is where in line would they stand relative to others."

Florida lawmakers say they also had non-monetary reasons for capping the
industry's bond. "People or companies, regardless of who they are or
what they do, should not be denied access to an appeal," says Florida
Rep. Ken Gottlieb, D-Miramar.

Bush is inclined to sign the bill, spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst says. The
tobacco industry has lobbied lawmakers in several states for legal
protection. Four tobacco-producing states -- North Carolina, Virginia,
Georgia and Kentucky -- have passed legislation to shield company assets
in their states from bond requirements. But Florida's new law is
considered the most important, because the trial is taking place in that

The Miami jury has taken a tough stand against cigarette makers. In
July, it found that they addicted and defrauded smokers for decades.
Last month, it ordered the industry to pay two smokers $ 6.9 million in
compensatory damages, designed to cover medical costs, lost earnings and
pain and suffering. It awarded $ 5.8 million to a third smoker but
decided he couldn't collect because he waited too long to file his

The defendants in the case include the nation's five largest tobacco
companies: Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard
and Liggett Group. (USA Today, May 8, 2000)

WHITMAN EDUCATION: Announces Agreement to Resolve Lawsuit over Courses
Whitman Education Group, Inc. (AMEX:WIX) announced on May 8 that it has
reached an agreement in principle to settle a previously disclosed class
action lawsuit relating to students who attended the Company's
Ultrasound Diagnostic Schools, which has been reported in the CAR. As a
result, the Company will take a one-time, after-tax charge to earnings
in the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2000, presently estimated to
approximate $ 900,000, or $0.07 per share.

The class of students covered by the settlement includes those students
who attended the Ultrasound Diagnostic Schools general ultrasound and
non-invasive cardiovascular technology programs between August 1994 and
August 1998. Individual students included within the class may have the
right to opt out of the settlement. The settlement is subject to the
review and approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Whitman Education Group, Inc. is a proprietary provider of
career-oriented post-secondary education. Through three wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Whitman currently operates 23 schools in 13 states
offering a range of graduate, undergraduate and non-degree certificate
and diploma programs primarily in the fields of information science,
healthcare and business to over 8,000 students.


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  * * *