CAR_Public/000628.MBX                  C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                  Wednesday, June 28, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 125

                                 Headlines

ACCELR8 TECHNOLOGY: Resumes Trading on Nasdaq, Securities Suit Goes on
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit in NY
ANIKA THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in MA
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Plans Vigorous Defense of Securities Suits in FL
CYBER-CARE, INC: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Florida

DEPT OF CHILDREN: Parentsí Suit Adds More Plaintiffs and FL Gov. Bush
FIRST UNION: Sued over Letter of Intent With Radiant Partners
HMOs: Lawsuit against Humanas Expanded to Include 6 Others
INMATES LITIGATION: High Ct Rules Reform Act's Stay May Not Be Enjoined
LAW SOCIETY: Society in Canada Probes Immune from Suit over Disclosure

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Assails Charges of Work Racism in GA Aircraft Plant
STEVEN MADDEN: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in New York
STEVEN MADDEN: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in New York
STONE & WEBSTER: Motion for Lead Plaintiff Must be Filed in 11 Days
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyer Optimistic That Leaf Growers Will Win Suit

TORONTO HYDRO: Lawsuit Alleges Utility Charged Illegal Interst Rates
UNICAPITAL CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida

                                   *********

ACCELR8 TECHNOLOGY: Resumes Trading on Nasdaq, Securities Suit Goes on
----------------------------------------------------------------------Accelr8
Technology Corporation (NASDAQ: ACLY) is resumed trading on NASDAQ
today. The stock price is trading at below $1 per share. Accelr8 and
certain of its executives are charged with violating the federal
securities laws. Berman, DeValerio & Pease, LLP, www.bermanesq.com, has
filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on June 8, 2000 to recover money damages for
Accelr8 investors. The class action is on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased the common stock of Accelr8 during the period of
September 15, 1997 through and including November 16, 1999 (the "Class
Period") and who suffered losses on their investments.

The complaint alleges that the defendants materially overstated the
Company's revenue, improperly recognized revenue relating to licensing
and maintenance fees, and failed to amortize capitalized software
development costs. It also claims that the Company failed to disclose
that Accelr8's Navig8 2000 software, created to fix the millennium bug
(where computers may read the year 2000 as 1900 and malfunction), was in
fact only available to a computer system manufactured by Digital
Equipment Corp. ("DEC"), and was not available as a general Year 2000
remediation tool to the total universe of the programs that need Year
2000 solutions, contrary to the Company's repeated assertions during the
Class Period.

When these accounting violations came to light, the Company's auditors,
Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte & Touche"), informed the Company that
their audit report, dated September 15, 1998, on the Company's financial
statements for the years ended July 31, 1997 and 1998 should no longer
be relied upon, and resigned as Accelr8's auditors. Trading in Accelr8's
stock, which had traded as high as $27 during the Class Period, is now
below $1 per share meaning that investors who purchased the stock during
the Class Period have allegedly suffered substantial damages.

Contact: Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP Patrick T. Egan, Esq. (800)
516-9926.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that
a class action lawsuit was filed on June 23, 2000, on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise aquired the common stock
of American Electric Power Company (NYSE:AEP), between July 25, 1997 and
June 25, 1999, inclusive.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:
http://www.milberg.com/aep/

The action, numbered CV 00 3744, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, located at 225
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201, against defendants AEP, E.
Linn Draper, Jr. (President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of
the Board of Directors), G.P. Maloney (Principal Financial Officer),
Gene Fitzpatrick (Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation) and
Robert Powers (Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation). The
Honorable I. Leo Glasser is the Judge presiding over the case.

The complaint charges AEP and several of its senior officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that AEP issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the undisclosed materially impaired condition of the D.C. Cook
nuclear power plant and the adverse effect these problems were having,
and would continue to have, on the Company. As a result of these
materially false and misleading statements, among others, plaintiff
alleges that the price of AEP common stock was artificially inflated
throughout the Class Period.

If you bought the securities of AEP between July 25, 1997 and June 25,
1999, you may, no later than August 25, 2000, request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of
other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery, is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP, in association with Egan & Associates, P.C., Strasburger &
Price, L.L.P. and Morris and Morris, or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

Contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY,
10119-0165 Phone Number: 800/320-5081 Website: http://www.milberg.com
Email: AEPcase@milbergNY.com


ANIKA THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, announces that a class action
is being commenced on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Anika
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ANIK) between April 15, 1998, and May 30,
2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein
website at www.whafh.com.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, against defendants Anika, J. Melville Engle
(Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President), and Sean Moran
(Chief Financial Officer).

The complaint charges Anika and certain of its officers, with violations
of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading financial statements for the Company's 1998 fiscal year and
the first three quarters of 1999. On March 15, 2000, Anika announced
that, after an informal inquiry buy the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), it would restate its previously reported financial
results for 1998 and the first three quarters of 1999 due to improperly
recording revenue. Further, on May 30, 2000, Anika revealed that the SEC
commenced a formal investigation into its accounting practices.
Following this announcement, Anika's common stock plunged 66 percent to
$2 1/2 per share on May 31, 2000.

Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York
800/575-0735 Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., nespole@whafh.com
Gnespole@aol.com or Fred T. Isquith, Esq., Michael Miske or George
Peters classmember@whafh.com whafh@aol.com www.whafh.com.


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Plans Vigorous Defense of Securities Suits in FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Laboratories (AMEX:COB) announced on June 26 that the Company
intends to vigorously contest allegations made against it and certain
officers and directors of the Company in a number of securities class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period of November 8, 1999 to June 9,
2000. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and
certain officers and directors made misstatements to the investing
public about the Company's products and prospects.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit
and intends to contest them vigorously.


CYBER-CARE, INC: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., has
announced that, on behalf of its client, it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Cyber-Care, Inc. (Nasdaq:CYBR) between Nov. 4, 1999 through May 12,
2000.

The suit, filed in the Southern District of Florida, seeks to recover
under the federal securities laws for damages sustained by members of
the proposed Class. Cyber-Care and its CEO/Chairman of the Board are
named in the suit, which alleges the defendants issued false and
misleading statements and made material omissions concerning, among
other things, Cyber-Care's operations and prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that since Cyber-Care's much-hyped Electronic Housecall System,
or "EHS" had not yet received FDA approval, it could not be sold or
marketed in any way, and that to the extent Cyber-Care was announcing
sales or agreements to buy, Cyber-Care was in violation of governmental
regulations. In addition, the complaint alleges that as for the sales
and agreements Cyber-Care did announce, many were to entities that were
either so unestablished or in such poor financial condition as to make
the likelihood of the sales actually occurring extremely small. Also
undisclosed was that a purported independent analyst touting the stock
was actually employed by Cyber-Care's PR firm.

Persons who are members of the Class described above have until July 18,
2000 to move the court if they desire to serve as lead plaintiffs in the
case. In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal
requirements.

Contact: Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 888/240-0775 or
202/408-4600 Mark S. Willis mwillis@cmht.com Lisa Polk lpolk@cmht.com


DEPT OF CHILDREN: Parentsí Suit Adds More Plaintiffs and FL Gov. Bush
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against the Florida Department of Children and Families
by parents who claim the agency has abused its power was amended Monday
to add more plaintiffs and include Gov. Jeb Bush as a defendant.

When the class action suit was first filed in U.S. District Court June
6, it named 12 plaintiffs. Now there are more than 50, said lawyer
Robert Dowd, seeking more than $701 million for the plaintiff class.

The list of 20 defendants include Children and Families Secretary
Kathleen Kearney, Attorney General Bob Butterworth and the Florida
juvenile court system. Dowd said adding the governor's name is a way to
get his attention. "His staff has dealt very rudely with the first
plaintiff, and there are two or three other cases in which he was
directly involved," Dowd said. "So that is why we are suing him, to get
his response."

Bush's press secretary, Elizabeth Hirst, said the governor would not
comment until after his legal department had seen the suit.

In the suit, the plaintiff parents allege that families have been
destroyed and parents have been denied due process by the "arbitrary,
capricious and malicious actions" of DCF staff.

The DCF has come under fire since the death of 6-year-old Kayla McKean
two years ago in Clermont. The investigation that followed showed that
child welfare workers repeatedly missed signs Kayla was being abused by
her father, and led to systemic changes.

Parents have criticized some of the reforms, saying child welfare
workers now overzealously remove children from homes. The lawsuit
alleges the state agency is motivated to take children from their
families because the agency receives more federal funds if they do. (The
Associated Press State & Local Wire, June 26, 2000)


FIRST UNION: Sued over Letter of Intent With Radiant Partners
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Union Real Estate Investments (NYSE:FUR) announced on June 26 that
shortly after it had signed a letter of intent concerning a possible
transaction with Radiant Partners, LLC, an entity called Brickell
Partners commenced a self-styled class action lawsuit against First
Union, all of its trustees, and Radiant in state court in New York City.
The complaint, which seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
against the transaction, as well as unspecified damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees, alleges that the terms of the proposed transaction are
unfair to the Company's stockholders and represent a breach by the
defendant trustees of their fiduciary duties.

Although the complaint alleges that Brickell Partners is a stockholder,
it does not say how many shares Brickell owns or when those shares were
purchased. Nor does the complaint identify any party who Brickell
believes would be willing to pay a price higher than that offered by
Radiant or state that the terms of the letter of intent preclude or
deter any third party from offering a higher price.

William A. Ackman, Chairman of First Union commented on the lawsuit:
"The proposed transaction with Radiant is the product of a nine-month
exploration of alternatives by the Company and its advisors. No party
has offered terms superior to those proposed by Radiant, but should any
third party do so, the Board would consider such a proposal. In
addition, any further transaction with Radiant is subject to the
negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement, the receipt by
Radiant of mezzanine and equity financing and approval of the Company's
stockholders."

"Accordingly, we view this lawsuit as utterly without merit. It
represents an effort by one stockholder to divert value to itself at the
expense of all stockholders, which is consistent with the pattern of
numerous prior litigations Brickell Partners has brought against other
parties. First Union and its Board will defend the matter vigorously."

First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments is a NYSE-listed
stapled-stock real estate investment trust (REIT) headquartered in New
York, New York.


HMOs: Lawsuit against Humanas Expanded to Include 6 Others
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawyers suing Humanas HMO have expanded their Miami class-action
lawsuit to include six other HMOs with some 80 million subscribers.

Led by high-powered attorneys David Boies, the lawyer who took on
Microsoft and won, and Richard Scruggs, the famed Mississippi
anti-tobacco lawyer, the 41 law firms involved decided to widen the
case. Late Friday, they filed an amended complaint in federal court
adding Cigna, Foundation Health Systems, Pacificare Health Systems,
Aetna-U.S. Healthcare, Prudential and United Healthcare.

It makes sense to combine them, for purposes of judicial efficiency,
said Stephen N. Zack, one of 12 lawyers to sit on the cases steering
committee. This is a big chunk of the HMOs out there. Well probably add
on more complaints against other HMOs further on.

The lawyers also spelled out their complaint against Humana and the
other HMOs. As expected, they have decided to focus on issues of
disclosure -- claiming the HMOs did not disclose financial arrangements
they had with physicians and health care workers to steer patients to
cost-cutting treatments. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit
against an HMO last week but indicated in a footnote that disclosure was
a separate issue.

Earlier this year, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation consolidated a number of cases against Humana and transferred
the case to Miami. Now, the lawyers will wait to hear whether the panel
will approve the case against the other HMOs. (Broward Daily Business
Review, June 26, 2000)


INMATES LITIGATION: High Ct Rules Reform Act's Stay May Not Be Enjoined
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
and held that a District Court may not enjoin the operation of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act's automatic stay provision, and that the
provision does not violate separation of power principles.

In 1975, four inmates of the Pendleton Correctional Facility brought a
class action on behalf of all prisoners in the facility regarding the
conditions at Pendleton. After a trial, the District Court found that
living conditions at the facility violated the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and issued an
injunction to correct the violations. The ongoing injunctive relief has
remained in effect, with the last modification occurring in 1988.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which
established standards for the entry and termination of prospective
relief in civil actions challenging conditions at prison facilities.
Section 3626(a)(1)(A) of the act provides that a court shall not grant
or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such
relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct
violations, and is the least intrusive means to correct the violations.
Section 3626(b)(2) provides that the same criteria applies to existing
injunctions, and a defendant or intervenor may move to terminate
prospective relief that does not meet that standard. The section at
issue here, '3626(e)(2), provides that any motion to modify or terminate
prospective relief shall operate as a stay for 30 days, or until the
court enters a final order. In 1997, there were amendments to the PLRA
that permitted courts to postpone the entry of the automatic stay for
not more than 60 days for good cause.

In June 1997, the state filed a motion under '3626(b) to terminate the
prospective relief at Pendleton. The prisoners moved for a temporary
restraining order or to enjoin the operation of the automatic stay. The
prisoners argued that '3626(e)(2) was unconstitutional as both a
violation of the due process clause and the separation of powers
principles. The District Court granted the prisoners' motion and
enjoined the automatic stay. The state appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held that '3626(e)(2) was
unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds, and therefore affirmed
the District Court's order.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the
Courts of Appeals as to whether '3626(e)(2) permits federal courts to
enjoin the operation of the PLRA's automatic stay provision and, if not,
to review the 7th Circuit's judgment that '3626(e)(2) is
unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, and joined in
Parts I and II by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that
through the PLRA Congress clearly intended to make operation of the
automatic stay mandatory, precluding the courts from exercising their
equitable powers to enjoin the stay, and the Court reversed the 7th
Circuit.

The Court looked to the plain language of the section and found that
'3626(e)(2) was unambiguous. The Court determined that any construction
that preserved the courts' equitable discretion to enjoin the automatic
stay would effectively convert the PLRA's mandatory stay into a
discretionary one. The Court concluded that because that would be
plainly contrary to Congress' intent in enacting the stay provision, it
had to look to the constitutional issue.

The Court determined that the entry of a stay does not reopen or suspend
a previous judgment, nor does it divest the court of authority to decide
the merits of a termination motion. The Court concluded that the stay
merely reflects the changed legal circumstance that prospective relief
under the existing decree is no longer enforceable and remains
unenforceable until a court makes the findings required by '3626(b)(3).
Therefore, the Court held that the section did not violate the
separation of powers principles, and the judgment of the 7th Circuit was
reversed.

Justice David Souter, with whom Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined,
dissented in part, concluding that while he joined with the majority on
most of the decision, he believes that applying the statute may also
raise a serious separation-of-powers issue if the time it allows turns
out to be inadequate for a court to determine whether the new
prerequisite to relief is satisfied in a particular case.

Justice Stephen Breyer, with whom Justice John Paul Stevens joined,
dissented, concluding that a different reading of the statute allows for
a court to modify or suspend the automatic stay when a party has
demonstrated a need for such an exception, and that interpretation
reflects the Court's historic reluctance to read a statute as depriving
the courts of their traditional equitable powers and also avoids
constitutional difficulties that might arise in unusual cases. Miller v.
French, No. 99-224, Decided June 19, 2000 (Legal Times, June 26, 2000)


LAW SOCIETY: Society in Canada Probes Immune from Suit over Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action against the Law Society of Upper Canada has been
struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal for failure to disclose a
cause of action. "The investigative and disciplinary functions of the
Law Society are inherently judicial or at least quasi-judicial and,
absent an allegation of bad faith or malice, do not expose the Law
Society to liability for negligence," the court ruled, upholding an
order of fellow appeal court Justice Robert Sharpe, then a Superior
Court judge.

The plaintiffs lost money in a fraudulent investment scheme for the
purchase of gold at a discounted price provided they paid upfront and
waited 90 days. They paid their funds to the client trust account of
Palmer Mills, the law firm acting for Sisto Consultants Inc., an Ontario
company which purported to be an agent for various gold producers.
Despite the passage of time and repeated requests, no gold was
delivered. In fact, no mines or gold existed.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs allege that they were
victimized by a fraud organized and facilitated by defendants other than
the law firm Palmer Mills, but that John Mills and the Law Society of
Upper Canada permitted the fraud to continue by their negligence and
breach of duty. They also allege that Mills used his trust account to
provide banking services for the venture.

In commencing their action under Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, the
plaintiffs propose to represent up to 260 individuals who deposited
money into this investment program between May 1989 and July 1990, and
who claim to have individually lost from $1,733 to $303,110 US. The
motion to certify the class has not yet been held.

The Law Society became involved when another solicitor, to whom Mills
referred two individuals he could not act for, became concerned about
the propriety of Sisto's operations. He wrote Mills that the method of
distribution of gold-related securities appeared to be not in compliance
with applicable securities legislation and that the use of the firm's
trust account as the " bank" for the operations of Sisto appeared to
contravene the rules governing the use of solicitors'trust accounts,
which are not used for the conduct of business enterprises.

The letter concluded that the writer felt an obligation to report the
matter to the Law Society unless Mills himself did so. Mills forwarded
the letter to the Law Society the same day, writing that he thought the
other solicitor was mistaken in his conclusions but that he would make
the firm's records available to the Law Society for inspection.

The statement of claim does not expressly allege that the appellants, or
any members of the class they propose to represent, were clients of
Mills in the traditional sense, but rather that they were "persons from
whom or on whose behalf a member of the Law Society in connection with
his practice receives money."(s. 13(a) of Regulation 573 under the Law
Society Act)

"As I understand their position,"Justice George Finlayson wrote for the
court, "the appellants take a larger view of the duty of the Law Society
and allege that it goes beyond a concern for the protection of clients
in the traditional sense and extends to the public generally."

The plaintiffs claimed that once the Law Society received the complaint
against Mills, it owed a duty to the plaintiffs and the class to ensure
that Mills was operating his trust account in a manner consistent with
its requirements and to ensure that he was not connected with the
operation of a scheme in violation of applicable Ontario laws and his
fiduciary duties as a trustee and solicitor.

The plaintiffs asserted that the Law Society conducted an inadequate
investigation of the complaint, thereby breaching its duty of care owed
to the plaintiffs.

In considering whether the Law Society is liable in its own right and
for Mills's alleged negligence, breach of trust and breach of contract,
Justice Finlayson wrote:

"On analysis, the particulars pleaded are not allegations of misfeasance
or non-feasance on the part of the Law Society but rather a recital of
all the things that it was empowered to do in response to a complaint.
Counsel for the appellant very candidly stated to this court that he had
no idea what the Law Society did or did not do in response to the letter
of Mills and its enclosure. He hoped to find this out on discovery."

Justice Finlayson said there was "no provision in the Law Society Act or
at common law which would make the Law Society vicariously liable for
the misconduct of one of its members." He relied on the two-step test
used by the British House of Lords in 1978: 1.) Is there a sufficiently
close relationship between the parties so that, in the reasonable
contemplation of the public body, carelessness on its part might cause
damage to that person? 2.) If so, are there any considerations which
ought to negate or limit the duty?

After an extensive review of the caselaw regarding private law duty of
care, Justice Finlayson concluded that the appellants were not involved
with Mills in a traditional lawyer-client relationship, but rather as
part of an investment scheme.

"Mills served as the repository and trustee of their money, but does not
appear to have acted as a solicitor in dispensing legal advice. This, to
my mind, weakens any claim that the plaintiffs may have because it seems
reasonable to argue that, at the very least, the Law Society should not
serve as the insurer for every person that is swindled by a lawyer in
any fashion. However, assuming proximity exists, there are good reasons
to negate a duty of care in the circumstances of this case."

Having considered the Law Society's duty, if any, to the public, he
concluded that a relationship exists only between the Society and the
solicitor whose conduct is called into question.

"There is no role for the appellants. We do not even know when they
became aware of the complaint. The notion that they have some stake in
the investigation of the specific complaint and that the Law Society was
obliged to keep their interests in mind in dealing with Mills is foreign
to the judicial process. The Law Society should not feel obliged to
press forward with a prosecution to protect the appellants and others.
Rather, its concern should be to ensure fairness to Mills in the
investigative process and natural justice in any hearing that became
necessary."

He suggested the best way the Law Society could serve the public was by
dealing fairly and appropriately with its member lawyers. "If the Law
Society fails to carry out its duty to conduct its investigation and
hearings properly, this failure may make its ultimate decision against
Mills vulnerable to attack by Mills, but it does not expose the Law
Society to a suit for damages in negligence."

The Law Foundation of Ontario was drawn into the case as an intervener
on the issue of costs. One object of the Foundation is to provide
financial assistance to proceedings commenced under the Class
Proceedings Act. The plaintiffs/appellants had received the necessary
approval from the Class Proceedings Committee, followed by support from
the Class Proceedings Fund. This approval not only allows funding in the
discretion of the committee to the plaintiffs to support the class
action suit, but also makes the Law Foundation liable to pay a costs
award made to a successful defendant against the plaintiff in the class
proceedings. The Foundation argued against paying the Law Society's
costs.

Justice Finlayson quoted from the Class Proceedings Act: "In exercising
its discretion with respect to costs, the court may consider whether the
class proceeding was a test case, raised a novel point of law or
involved a matter of public interest."

He concluded, "This is far from a test case or one that is in the public
interest. The class represents a limited number of persons who allege
that some gold merchants scammed them with the assistance of a
particular lawyer who is alleged to have been dishonest. It is a
stand-alone action and has no public interest dimension. As it affects
the Law Society, it is in the nature of a fishing expedition. The case
did not raise a novel point of law. Stripped to its essentials, the
appellants are asking the court to overrule an established line of
authority reaching to the Supreme Court of Canada declaring, absent a
showing of bad faith, that the Law Society is immune from civil suits
for damages."Describing the appellants as "threshing old straw,"he
added:

"Accordingly, I would dismiss the appellants'appeal against the cost
award of the trial judge. In this court, costs should simply follow the
event and be payable by the appellants to the respondent Law Society on
a party and party basis."

Justices Michael Moldaver and Stephen Goudge concurred. (The Lawyers
Weekly, June 30, 2000)


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Assails Charges of Work Racism in GA Aircraft Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corp. said in court filings that two racial
discrimination lawsuits filed in May by employees at its military
aircraft plant in Marietta, Ga., are vague and unsubstantiated. The
Bethesda-based company denied that its hiring and promotion practices at
the plant discriminate against African Americans and insisted that it
has always investigated and dealt with allegations of improper conduct.
Lockheed Martin also said individual instances of withheld promotions or
bonuses cited by the workers who filed suit were based on performance
and not race.

"Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to show that Lockheed
Martin . . . acted with malice or reckless indifference to any
plaintiff's civil rights," the response in one of 38 separate arguments
against the charges said.

Two groups of workers--one hourly and the other salaried--filed the
suits on May 10 in U.S. District Court in Atlanta after failing to
negotiate a settlement with the company over findings of probable
discrimination by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A
team of lawyers, including former O.J. Simpson defender Johnnie L.
Cochran Jr., is seeking to have the cases expanded to class-action
status to cover roughly 700 minority employees in Marietta and
throughout the corporation.

Cochran waved off the company's filings as "a fairly lawyer-like
response" and "a stonewall approach."

Lockheed Martin, in the court documents, challenged the effort to make
the suit a class action, saying that no such class of victimized
employees exists. The company also said one supervisor caught uttering a
racial slur had been demoted and an allegation that a supervisor left a
noose in a black employee's workplace had been investigated, but that no
culprit could be identified. (The Washington Post, June 27, 2000)


STEVEN MADDEN: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on behalf of
its client, on June 26, 2000, filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Steven Madden, Ltd. (Nasdaq:SHOO)
during the period between November 3, 1999 and June 20, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company and defendant Madden. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that defendant Madden had participated in
a scheme to manipulate the market for various initial public offerings
of common stock of certain companies and that he had done so in
conjunction with Stratton Oakmont -- a securities brokerage that was
censured and fined by the NASD and SEC for securities fraud and is now
defunct; (b) that the Company's projections of future success were
lacking in a reasonable basis at all times because defendant Madden's
ability to continue in his roles at the Company were subject to
increased risk and uncertainty given his involvement in the
aforementioned scheme; and (c) that, given defendant Madden's
involvement in the aforementioned scheme, his ability to continue to
operate and direct the operations of the Company were subject to
increased and heightened risk in that he would be unable to continue in
his roles at the Company and, accordingly, the Company's operations
would be adversely affected.

Contact: Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. Daniel S. Sommers,
Esq./Robert Smits 888/240-0775 or 202/408-4600 dsommers@cmht.com
rsmits@cmht.com


STEVEN MADDEN: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Steven Madden Ltd.
(Nasdaq: SHOO), between November 3, 1999 and June 20, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Steven Madden and its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, Steven Madden ("Madden") violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit charges that, during the
Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company and defendant Madden. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that (a) defendant Madden had participated
in a scheme to manipulate the market for various initial public
offerings of common stock of certain companies and that he had done so
in conjunction with Stratton Oakmont -- a securities brokerage that was
censured and fined by the NASD and SEC for securities fraud and is now
defunct; (b) that the Company's projections of future success were
lacking in a reasonable basis at all times because defendant Madden's
ability to continue in his roles at the Company were subject to
increased risk and uncertainty given his involvement in the
aforementioned scheme; and (c) that, given defendant Madden's
involvement in the aforementioned scheme, his ability to continue to
operate and direct the operations of the Company were subject to
increased and heightened risk in that he would be unable to continue in
his roles at the Company and, accordingly, the Company's operations
would be adversely affected. On June 20, 2000, when news of defendant
Madden's arrest for his alleged involvement with a massive securities
fraud was communicated to the securities markets, the price of Steven
Madden common stock fell from 13 1/8 to 11 3/16 before trading was
halted on the Nasdaq.

Contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Brigid T. Kavanaugh, Esq., or Donald R.
Hall, Esq., all of Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, 800-290-1952,
212-687-1980, fax, 212-687-7714, mail@kkf-law.com /Web site:
http://www.kkf-law.com


STONE & WEBSTER: Motion for Lead Plaintiff Must be Filed in 11 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP issues the following press release:

Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a
shareholder class action pending against two officers of Stone &
Webster, Inc. (New York Stock Exchange: SW), H. Kerner Smith and Thomas
Langford, must file their motions no later than July 7, 2000. Berman,
DeValerio & Pease, LLP (http://www.bergmanesq.com/)has already been
retained by a number of investors to represent them in this action. 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. 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.

Contact: Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP Michael. M. Sullivan, Esq. at
(800) 516-9926


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyer Optimistic That Leaf Growers Will Win Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------Banding
together to battle big tobacco promises big rewards for small farmers
and quota holders, says a lawyer seeking new participants in a
class-action lawsuit.

Alexander J. Pires Jr. of Washington, D.C. is the lead lawyer in a
lawsuit against the four major cigarette manufacturers seeking $18
billion. He spoke Monday with about 70 farmers and quota holders in one
of eight meetings scheduled by July 12 in four Southeastern states. "I
don't think in a million years you can lose this lawsuit," Pires said.
"You're going to need a U-Haul to pick up your share."

More than 6,000 farmers already have joined the lawsuit, which was filed
in February against Philip Morris Cos., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Brown &
Williamson Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco.

But in the short term, lawyers need the $100 each farmer and quota
holder pays to join. "We're spending that money as fast as we can get
it, with mailings and other expenses," Pires said.

The case alleges tobacco companies have conspired to undo the federal
system that has regulated tobacco prices since 1933. The cigarette
companies have denied any wrongdoing and accuse attorneys of using
growers to seek big paydays for themselves.

Pires has spent months traveling tobacco country looking for plaintiffs
willing to join the lawsuit. In February, he pledged to "break" the
tobacco companies "unless they pay their fair share" to the growers.
Pires, who sued McDonald's in the famous coffee-scalding case, won a
settlement last year in a racial discrimination case lawsuit against the
Agriculture Department on behalf of black farmers that is expected to
cost the government $1 billion. He has a similar lawsuit pending against
USDA on behalf of American Indian growers. (The Associated Press State &
Local Wire, June 27, 2000)


TORONTO HYDRO: Lawsuit Alleges Utility Charged Illegal Interst Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Hydro is facing a $ 500-million lawsuit alleging the utility has
been charging illegal interest rates dating back almost 20 years,
documents show. A city audit report said the class-action suit accuses
Toronto Hydro and Ontario's other municipal utilities of gouging
customers with excessive late-payment charges since 1981.

"The claim alleges that late-payment penalties result in the receipt of
interest at effective rates in excess of 60% per year, which is illegal
under the Criminal Code," the audit report said. "The Municipal Electric
Association, in co-operation with Toronto Hydro, is undertaking the
defence of this claim." The auditor's report did not name the plaintiff,
when the suit was filed or on behalf of how many customers.

Toronto Hydro vice-president Blair Peberdy said the litigation prohibits
him from discussing details of the lawsuit. "We really don't have much
to say about it right now because it's before the courts," Peberdy said
of the suit launched by a Toronto resident. The lawsuit centres on a
one-time 7% late-payment charge Hydro demanded for amounts left
outstanding for more than a month.

                           Rate Hikes Approved

Peberdy said the utility now charges 1.5% on unpaid balances, an
interest rate similar to what phone companies charge. He said the old
Toronto Hydro Electric Commission's rate hikes were approved by Ontario
Hydro prior to the utility's incorporation on July 1, 1999. Toronto
Hydro's rates are now approved by the Energy Board. Officials with the
Municipal Electric Association couldn't be reached for comment. (The
Toronto Sun, June 27, 2000)


UNICAPITAL CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on behalf of investors who bought
UniCapital Corp. (NYSE: UCP) stock between May 14, 1998 and May 15, 2000
(the "Class Period").

The action, numbered 00-2268, is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, located at
301 N. Miami Ave., Miami, FL 33128, against defendants UniCapital,
Robert New (Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board), and
Jonathan New (Chief Financial Officer). The complaint charges that
defendants violated, Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between May 14, 1998, and May
15, 2000. For example, as alleged in the complaint, on May 14, 1998, the
Company represented in the prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's Initial Public Offering (the "Prospectus") that it recognized
$588.7 million in goodwill as an asset in connection with twelve
corporate acquisitions. UniCapital, however, did not disclose that it
overvalued the acquisitions. In addition, the prospectus failed to
disclose that the company would have to comply with federal noise
abatement statutes thereby requiring the phasing-out of certain types of
the Company's aircraft which would, and did, negatively impact the
Company's operations. When the Company announced, on May 15, 2000, that
its first quarter 2000 financial results would be dramatically lower
than the market had been led to believe, due to, among other things, an
$ 8.5 million operating loss, as well as a $239.3 million write off of
the impaired goodwill, the stock price of UniCapital dropped by 28%.

Contatct: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Michael Miske,
George Peters, Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. or Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. 6
800/575-0735 6 www.whafh.com 6 classmember@whafh.com


                              *********


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  * * *