CAR_Public/000829.MBX             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 29, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 168

                            Headlines

2CONNECT: Settlement Pact for Securities Suit Re IPO to Be Heard in AL
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Judge Dismisses Donors’ RICO Suit Vs Bankrupt Hospital
BOSTON: Lawsuit Says Leaders Conspire against Minority Neighborhoods
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE: Kenneth B. Moll Files Nationwide Suit in Illinois
CHINA MOBILE: China's Largest Cell Phone Operator May Face Suit over Fee

COASTAL CORP: Arguments over Gas Measurement and Valuation Heard
COCA-COLA: Ex-employee Says Some May Pull out of Racism Suit Settlement
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: To Pay $22M for Food Additive Price-Fixing Lawsuit
EDEN: Court Ordered review criticizes AZ over children's Mental services
GREAT WHITE: Krage & Janvey Announces TX Suit Re Unregistered Securities

HAWAII: Fails to Fix Special Ed Programs; Court Holds State in contempt
MICROSOFT CORP: RI Superior Ct Judge Throws out Local Antitrust Suit
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: TX Law Firm Claims Accessibility Violations under ADA
OLYMPICS ORGANISERS: Blind Man to Sue over Web Site Accessibility
RAINFOREST CAFE: Emerges from MN Securities Suit Re Proposed Merger

VISUAL NETWORKS: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in Maryland
VISUAL NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Lawsuit in Maryland
WARNACO GROUP: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Suit in New York
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Eastern Environment Shareholders Sue over Merger
WATER CONTAMINATION: Lawyers Advocate Ct Overseeing Ontario Compensation

WATER CONTAMINATION: Walkerton Utility Boss Wants to Be Heard
YBM MAGNEX: Canadian Law Firm Named in Shareholders’ Suit in U.S.
YORK AND DABICH: Demand Excuse Rule Inapplicable to Two Person Board

                               *********

2CONNECT: Settlement Pact for Securities Suit Re IPO to Be Heard in AL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued pursuant to an order of the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama:

Bartz-Michalski Trust, Robert E. Thorn R/O Ira and Robert E. Thorn, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

Mark D. Fishman, Steve Stedman, Ira Neimark, David Colby, Lynn Tilton,
Arnold Jaffee, and Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc., Defendants.

CASE NO. CV9802407

Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement and
Settlement Hearing

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE SECURITIES OF
2CONNECT EXPRESS, INC. IN THE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF 2CONNECT
SECURITIES PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS, WHICH
REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS WENT EFFECTIVE ON OR ABOUT MAY 9,
1997, OR IN THE SECONDARY MARKET AT ANY TIME BETWEEN MAY 9, 1997 AND
JANUARY 12, 1998, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.

You are hereby notified, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil
Procedure and an Order of the Court dated July 21, 2000, that the
above-captioned action has been certified as a class action, and that a
settlement for 100,000 shares of common stock of Bobby Allison Wireless
Corporation ("Shares"), plus $100,000 has been proposed. A hearing will be
held before the Honorable Allwin E. Horn, III, at the Criminal Justice
Center, 801 North 21st Street, Birmingham, Alabama 35263,at 9:45 a.m., on
December 1, 2000 to determine whether the proposed settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate, and to consider the
application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

If you are a member of the Class described above, your rights will be
affected and you may be entitled to share in the settlement fund. If you
have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Proposed Partial Settlement and Settlement Hearing and a Proof of Claim
form, you may obtain copies of these documents by identifying yourself as a
member of the Class and by calling or writing to:

In re 2Connect Securities Litigation C/O Gilardi & Co. LLC Claims
Administrator Post Office Box 5100 Larkspur, CA 94977-5100 415/461-0410

Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and Proof of Claim,
may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: David R. Donaldson, Esq., Donaldson,
Guin & Slate, LLC, The Morgan Keegan Center, Suite 230, 2900 Highway 280,
Birmingham, Alabama 35223, Telephone: 205/879-9994; Janine L. Pollack,
Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, New York 10119, Telephone: 212/594-5300; and/or David Mazie, Esq.,
Nagel Rice & Dreifuss, 301 S. Livingston Avenue, Suite 201, Livingston, New
Jersey 07039-3991, Telephone: 973/535-3100.

The deadline for submitting Proofs of Claim, if required, is December 10,
2000. To exclude yourself from the Class you must submit a request for
exclusion no later than October 24, 2000. If you are a Class Member and do
not exclude yourself you will be bound by the final order and judgment of
the court.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in writing to
the Claims Administrator.

By Order of The Court

Contact: Gilardi & Co., LLC Cheryl Washington, 415/461-0410


ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Judge Dismisses Donors’ RICO Suit Vs Bankrupt Hospital
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has dismissed a proposed class-action civil RICO suit
against former officers and directors of the Allegheny Health Education and
Research Foundation (AHERF) brought by charitable donors and recipients who
said their money was squandered before the hospital chain ended up in
bankruptcy.

In his 46-page opinion in Browne v. Abdelhak, Senior U.S. District Judge
Clarence C. Newcomer found that neither group the donors or the recipients
has a legally protectable "property interest" in the money. Attorneys
Sherrie R. Savett & Michael J. Fantini of Berger & Montague filed the suit
on behalf of a proposed class of people and organizations who provided
funds to AHERF in contribution to grants or endowments "to be used for
specific purposes relating to research, medicine, patient care, education,
lectureships, etc.," and a second proposed class "who were the
beneficiaries or recipients of grants or endowments held by AHERF." The
defendants in the suit are "the inner circle of officers of AHERF," as well
as members of the executive committee of its Board of trustees and Mellon
Bank Corp.

The suit essentially alleged that the defendants wrongfully seized and
misappropriated the class members' restricted endowment funds and grants
held in AHERF's custody. In the late 1980s, the suit said, AHERF expanded
with the acquisition of two medical schools the Medical College of
Pennsylvania and Hahnemann University and their related hospitals and later
acquired several community hospitals and St. Christopher Hospital for
Children. In the midst of the financial strain that resulted from AHERF's
overexpansion, the suit alleged, the defendants raided and used millions of
dollars from various endowments and accounts for "unauthorized purposes,
including awarding themselves exorbitant pay raises, bonuses, and other
compensations; repaying a [$ 89 million] loan to defendant Mellon; and for
other business purposes of AHERF." The alleged misuse of funds was "part of
a larger fraudulent scheme by the defendants to keep AHERF afloat for as
long as possible so that the defendants could continue to loot AHERF as
well as plaintiffs' funds in order to enrich themselves," the suit alleged.

In July 1998, AHERF filed for bankruptcy court protection from creditors
who were owed an estimated $ 1.3 billion.Several teams of defense lawyers
moved to have the suit dismissed arguing that both proposed plaintiff
classes lacked standing to bring suit under RICO. In order to have standing
to bring a RICO claim, a plaintiff must have been injured in his business
or property, and that injury must have been proximately caused by the
alleged RICO pattern. The defense teams argued that none of the plaintiffs
alleged a true property interest that would grant standing to bring the
suit.

Donors

Looking first to the charitable donor class, Newcomer found that "despite
the dearth of case law on the subject, it has been held that a property
interest is created in a donation when a right of reverter, right to
modify, or right to redirect is retained by the donor." But Pennsylvania
courts, he said, "have joined in not recognizing an implied possibility of
reverter." Instead, Newcomer said, Pennsylvania courts have concluded that
"where there is a conveyance to a corporate grantee, the addition of the
words, 'for no other use or purpose whatsoever,' is not of itself
sufficient to create a base fee where the purpose expressed in the
limitation and in the corporate charter are similar."

The suit alleged that when the plaintiffs established or contributed to the
endowments or grants held by AHERF, "the officer and trustee defendants
agreed and/or caused AHERF to represent to and agree with plaintiffs and
class members that the endowment and grant funds would be restricted, that
is, AHERF and the officer and trustee defendants could only use the funds
for the purposes designated by plaintiffs and the Class, and not for any
other purposes."But Newcomer found that the suit's "general allegations"
about the plaintiffs' endowment agreements' language "are not sufficient to
show that the plaintiffs retained any rights of reverter, rights to modify,
or rights to redirect."

Beneficiaries

Turning to the standing of the proposed beneficiary class, Newcomer found
that the question was somewhat more complicated."Although the beneficiary
plaintiffs' standing to enforce the trusts is not really contested, their
standing as to whether they may recover damages is disputed," Newcomer
wrote. The Restatement (Second) of Trusts, he said, states that "the
remedies for the failure of the trustees of a charitable trust to perform
their duties under the trust are exclusively equitable."However, Newcomer
said, the Restatement also says that "if the trustee is under a duty to pay
money immediately and unconditionally to the beneficiary, the beneficiary
can maintain an action at law against the trustee to enforce
payment."Newcomer concluded that the suit "sufficiently pleads that AHERF
was holding grant money for the beneficiary plaintiffs in charitable trust
for the purposes of funding their research" and that the allegations
"sufficiently show that AHERF had a duty to pay the beneficiary plaintiffs
from the funds." However, Newcomer said, "AHERF's duty to pay was not
unconditional; rather, it was restricted to the particular uses for which
the money was granted." While the beneficiary plaintiffs "clearly had an
interest in the funds," he said, "their interest was limited to the
conditions and restrictions set forth by the grants and was not alienable
without valid restraint upon alienation."

As a result, Newcomer concluded that the beneficiary plaintiffs "did not
have a property interest in those restricted grants funds for which they
now seek to recover unrestricted, and possibly treble, damages." Therefore,
he said, neither of the proposed classes have standing to bring any RICO
claims.

Mellon Bank was represented by attorneys Jay H. Calvert, Joseph B.G. Fay
and Bryant Lim of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, along with Richard S. Toder and
Menachem O. Zelmanovitz of Morgan's New York office.

Eight "outside director" defendants were represented by Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart attorneys Robert L. Byer, David L. McClenahan, Wendy E. Smith,
Nicholas P. Vari and John T. Waldron.

Sherif S. Abdelhak, AHERF's former CEO, was represented by George E.
McGrann of Sweeney Metz Fox & Schermer, along with Judith F. Olson of
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis. AHERF's former head of human resources,
Dwight L. Kasperbauer, was represented by Drinker Biddle & Reath attorneys
Michael J. Holston, John F. Schultz, Kirk D. Weaver, Amy E. Pizzutillo and
Mary Catherine Roper. David McConnell, AHERF's former CFO, was represented
by Kevin K. Douglass and Amy L. Wetterau of Babst Callard Clements &
Zomner, along with Robert A. King of Buchanan Ingersoll. And former AHERF
general counsel Nancy Wynstra was represented by Sal Cognetti of Foley
Cognetti & Comerford, along with Jeffrey B. Balicki, Jeffrey R. Lalama and
Francis C. Rapp of Feldstein Grinberg Stein & McKee. (The Legal
Intelligencer, August 28, 2000)


BOSTON: Lawsuit Says Leaders Conspire against Minority Neighborhoods
--------------------------------------------------------------------
South Boston's elected leaders engaged in a conspiracy to discriminate
against minority neighborhoods in their effort to gain housing dollars for
their district, a lawsuit filed in federal court alleges.

City Council President James M. Kelly, State Senator Stephen F. Lynch, and
Representative John A. Hart Jr. are individually named as defendants in the
suit brought against the city by neighborhood housing and civil rights
groups to challenge a 1998 agreement promising South Boston the bulk of
funds raised by development of the waterfront.

"The Seaport does not belong to South Boston any more than Logan Airport
belongs to East Boston," said Pat Cusick of the South End/Low er Roxbury
Housing and Planning Coalition, who joined some two dozen plaintiffs and
activists outside the federal courthouse along the waterfront.

City Councilor Chuck Turner of Roxbury criticized Mayor Thomas M. Menino
for not nullifying the agreement. "He chose not to do that and created the
situation where we have to go to court today to take the action necessary
to see that justice is done," Turner said.

The complaint asks a federal judge to declare the agreement invalid, saying
that it violates city zoning ordinance, state housing law, and the federal
Fair Housing Act, and would result in discrimination as city housing
dollars are channeled to the predominantly white neighborhood of South
Boston.

Hart, who said South Boston officials still believe they have a valid
contract, said he was "outraged" that the suit evoked the race issue. "It
isn't today, and never has been, about race," Hart said. He maintained that
the core issue is protecting a community besieged by development and trying
to "preserve the fabric that we have. . . . The way we're going, the South
Boston that we knew over the years is disappearing."

In questioning the motivations of South Boston leaders, the complaint cites
comments made by Kelly. In May, Kelly said that the South Boston Betterment
Trust, the private nonprofit group that the politicians empaneled, could
build housing with developers' contributions, without regard to Fair
Housing guidelines that require marketing to a diverse pool of applicants.

Asked whether minorities would be left out, Kelly said at the time: "My
first obligation is to build affordable housing for people who were born
and raised in South Boston and either have been or are threatened to be
displaced. That they happen to be white is not a factor one way or the
other."

Hart responded that from the time the agreement with the city was
negotiated, the officials knew they had to comply with fair housing laws.
"We are not looking to discriminate at all, but just like somebody in a
minority area of the city might look to help his constituents or hers,
we're looking to help ours," Hart said. "If other people have the
opportunity to apply for that housing, then good for them. But I represent
a section of South Boston and Dorchester, and that's my responsibility, to
do things to benefit my people, to do things fairly."

The Boston Redevelopment Authority and the South Boston Betterment Trust
are also named as defendants in the lawsuit, which was spearheaded by the
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, the law firm of Testa
Hurwitz & Thibeault, and the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School.

Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the Betterment Trust, said members could
not comment until they reviewed the document. BRA director Mark Maloney
said the city insists on adherence to fair housing rules, intends to comply
with them, and provides linkage funds for housing to qualified applicants
in any community.

Asked about the allegations of a conspiracy to discriminate, he said:
"That's absolutely untrue, unfounded, and frankly I think it's ridiculous.
. . . To extend that argument would be to suggest that giving any money to
a white community is an act of discrimination.

"South Boston has a need for affordable housing," he added, though the
neighborhood has offered fewer applications for linkage in the past. "The
other communities have received significant linkage funds to address their
housing needs because they've been willing and interested in receiving
afford able housing funding."

The plaintiffs include housing and community groups that will compete with
South Boston for resources, including the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood
Development Corp., City Life/Vi da Urbana, and the South End/Lower Roxbury
Housing & Planning Coalition. (The Boston Globe, August 25, 2000)


BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE: Kenneth B. Moll Files Nationwide Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. filed the first nationwide class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons that suffered personal injuries, death and
other injuries as a result of ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires designed,
manufactured, sold, and distributed by Defendants.

According to the complaint, these tires have demonstrated that they are
unreasonably dangerous due to an increased risk of tread separation, and
have caused numerous injuries and fatalities.

The lawsuit, known as the "BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE and FORD Class Action,"
was filed Monday, August 28, 2000, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Over 1,000 individuals have filed complaints with the National Highway
Transportation Authority regarding tread separation and other tire failure
associated with these tires. The statistics include over 62 fatalities and
hundreds of reported injuries.

As early as fall of 1999, Defendant, Ford Motor Company, began a recall of
Bridgestone/Firestone Tires on exported sport-utility vehicles in foreign
countries. Although Americans were making similar complaints about their
tires to Bridgestone/Firestone, a recall of certain model and size tires
was not issued in America until August 9, 2000.

On August 9, 2000, BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE and FORD, announced a voluntary
phased recall of all P235/75R15 Radial ATX and Radial ATX II tires and only
certain Wilderness AT tires which were manufactured at Firestone's Decatur,
Illinois manufacturing plant.

Attorney Kenneth Moll said, "The primary goals of the BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE
and FORD Class Action are to (1) encourage BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE and FORD
to issue a fully inclusive recall of all defective tires in the United
States as it did last year in foreign countries, including (a) Wilderness
AT tires manufactured in all 7 North American plants, including the
Decatur, Illinois plant and (b) all ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT 16 inch
tires; (2) ensure a speedy and fully reimbursed exchange of all defective
Wilderness AT, ATX, and ATX II tires; and (3) compensate all persons who
suffered personal injury or death as the result of the defective design and
manufacture of the tires."

Contact: Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. Kenneth B. Moll, 312/558-6444


CHINA MOBILE: China's Largest Cell Phone Operator May Face Suit over Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Mobile, the country's largest cellular phone operator, may face a
class action over a new fee it started charging this month, state media
reported on Monday. Subscribers in the central province of Henan are
furious because the local branch of the company is asking six yuan (72
cents) extra every month for allowing callers' phone numbers to be
displayed, the China Youth Daily said.

"If you want this function, you have to pay six yuan more," a China Mobile
spokesman told AFP by phone. "If you don't want it, we can cancel it for
you." He declined to comment on the prospect of a class action, which would
reportedly be the first against a Chinese telecoms company.

The fee, which has been charged since Monday last week, is in accordance
with directions from the central government, which allows mobile phone
operators to charge as much as 10 yuan (1.2 dollars) a month for the
function, he said.

A law firm in Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan, has set up a hotline for
angry mobile phone users and may decide to launch a class action against
the company, the China Youth Daily reported. The response has been
overwhelming, with over 100 people calling in just one day, according to
the paper. "We must use the lawyer weapon to protect our legitimate
rights," one unnamed rail worker told the paper. "That way we can show
monopolists that us ordinary folk aren't that easy to fool." (Agence France
Presse, August 28, 2000)


COASTAL CORP: Arguments over Gas Measurement and Valuation Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Energy Corp, which into a definitive agreement to merge with
The Coastal Corporation in January 2000, reports to the SEC that two legal
proceedings, one in federal court and the other in state court, have been
instituted against a number of gas pipeline companies and their affiliates,
including Coastal and several of its subsidiaries. The plaintiffs in each
suit seek damages for the alleged undermeasurement of the heating value and
the volume of natural gas.

In the federal proceeding, Jack Grynberg filed 77 separate False Claim Act
suits in September 1997 against natural gas transmission companies and
producers, gatherers, and processors of natural gas, seeking unspecified
damages which could include treble damages for the maximum period permitted
by law (potentially as much as ten years) and penalties of up to $10,000
per false claim. In addition to the measurement claims, these suits also
allege that the defendants undervalued the gas in paying royalties.

The Coastal defendants were sued in the U.S. District Courts of Colorado
and the Eastern District of Michigan. In April 1999, the U.S. Department of
Justice notified the Company that the United States would not intervene in
these cases at that time. The MultiDistrict Litigation Panel has
consolidated the Grynberg suits with several other Grynberg cases for
pre-trial proceedings in Wyoming. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
which was argued in March 2000, and the parties are awaiting the Court's
decision. The United States has filed a motion to dismiss part of the
Grynberg case.

In the state proceedings, the Quinque Operating Company, on behalf of
itself and subclasses of gas producers, royalty owners, overriding royalty
owners, and state taxing authorities, in May 1999, instituted a legal
proceeding in State Court in Stevens County, Kansas against over 200 gas
companies, including several Coastal subsidiaries. The Quinque suit seeks
unspecified actual, punitive and treble damages for the alleged
undermeasurement of all natural gas measured in the United States from
non-federal and non-Indian lands since 1974.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a national class of all
similarly situated gas producers, royalty owners, overriding royalty
owners, and state taxing authorities. The suit was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the case back to the state court. The MultiDistrict Litigation Panel
has transferred the Quinque suit to Wyoming and consolidated it with the
Grynberg proceedings as a result of a motion filed by several of the
defendants in the Quinque suit.

Numerous other lawsuits and other proceedings which have arisen in the
ordinary course of business are pending or threatened against the Company
or its subsidiaries.


COCA-COLA: Ex-employee Says Some May Pull out of Racism Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A former Coca-Cola Co. employee says he and others may pull out of the
proposed settlement of a class-action racial discrimination suit against
the company.

Larry Jones, a former Coke human relations manager who organized the
Committee for Corporate Justice after being laid off, said black employees
have not been given any information about the settlement. He said he and
others may withdraw from the settlement and file separate suits. "We will
continue to have private meetings to weigh our options and plot strategy,"
Jones said at a news conference. "That strategy will include seeking new
legal counsel. We didn't hire these attorneys, and they will be making
millions of dollars off of us."

Eight former Coke employees originally filed the lawsuit in December 1998.
It was expanded into a class action, with a potential class of 2,100
people.

Coke spokesman Ben Deutsch said Jones and about 200 others are barred from
filing separate suits because of waivers they signed when they were laid
off in a corporate restructuring. Jones disagreed. "Opting out should be an
option available to all members," he said.

Terms of the Coke settlement, reached two months ago, are not expected to
be announced until late October or early November, after a final agreement
has been reached. The suit alleges that the company has discriminated
against blacks in pay, promotions and performance evaluations. The company
has denied the allegations. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire,
August 25, 2000)


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: To Pay $22M for Food Additive Price-Fixing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Co. has agreed to pay $22 million to settle its part of a
class-action lawsuit for fixing the price of a food additive. Eastman
stopped selling sorbate, which prevents mold in bread and other foods, on
June 30. It agreed to pay an $11 million fine two years ago to settle
criminal charges. The company admitted in 1998 to fixing sorbate prices
from January 1995 to June 1997. At the time, Eastman was the only producer
of the product in the United States.

Eastman spokeswoman Nancy Ledford said that the sorbate price fixing was an
isolated event that "violated our long-held policies and practices for
antitrust compliance."

The $22 million settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in San Francisco. It's part of an $82
million settlement involving four defendants, including Hoechst AG of
Germany, Daicel Chemical Industries LTD. of Japan, and Nippon Gohsei of
Japan. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, August 25, 2000)


EDEN: Court Ordered review criticizes AZ over children's Mental services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A court-ordered independent review of behavioral health services to
children in Maricopa County, Ariz., has found a growing gap between the
level of services the state says it provides and the observed level of
performance.

The report is part of the proceedings in the class-action lawsuit J.K v.
Eden. The suit, filed in 1996, seeks adequate addiction and mental health
services for 14,000 Medicaid-eligible children in Maricopa County, which
includes Phoenix and about 80 percent of the state population. Up to 3,500
of those children have complex, chronic conditions. "The services that are
out there are not the services that kids need," Anne Ronan, staff attorney
at the Arizona Center for Disability Law, told ADAW. The disability center,
along with the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and the National Youth
Law Center, filed the lawsuit.

The system lacks necessary services and the skilled staff that would
provide them, Ronan said. Specialized services for children and
adolescents, such as treatment for substance abuse and co-occurring
disorders, are basically unavailable, she said.

The report comes at a critical time for the state. A temporary hold on the
lawsuit expires at the end of July. If state officials and advocates do not
begin serious discussions that move toward a consent decree soon, the
lawsuit will go to trial, Ronan said. Advocates are aiming for a
mid-January court date.

Because of the litigation, state officials are reluctant to comment. "The
department is committed to continued efforts on improving services to
Medicaid-eligible children, and working with stakeholders to address
concerns in the delivery of care," Ronald J. Smith, assistant director of
the Department of Health Services' Behavioral Health Division, said in a
statement.

Arizona's behavioral health system covers addiction and mental health
services for all Medicaid-eligible and indigent residents under a Section
1915(b) Medicaid waiver first implemented in 1992. Five regional behavioral
health authorities (RBHAs) manage those services under full-risk contracts.

ValueOptions Inc. has managed the Maricopa County program since February
1999, when it assumed full responsibility and financial risk from the
state. The Department of Health Services took control of the RBHA's
operations on Sept. 5, 1997, after the system's managing agency, ComCare
Inc., fell into a financial tailspin that forced it to drastically reduce
services to indigent adults (see ADAW, Sept. 8, 1997).

Underfunding continues to plague the program, which operates under the
weight of two class-action lawsuits. The other lawsuit, Arnold v. Sarn, is
under consent decree and demands that all adults with serious mental
illness who reside in Maricopa County have access to appropriate
community-based services.

The consent decree's requirements have had a direct impact on children's
services. ValueOptions diverts $ 900,000 a month, nearly one-third of the
money it receives for children's s services, to pay for adult services.

A solution to the chronic funding problem will not be easy. The state
estimates that its mental health system lacks about $ 350 million. In a
special session this year, Gov. Jane Dee Hull won legislative approval to
provide an additional $ 70 million in one-time funding for the system,
through tobacco settlement funding.

The report concluded that each of the major players bears responsibility
for the system's poor performance: the state Medicaid agency, known as the
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS); the Department of
Health Services; ValueOptions; and providers.

                         Report's findings

An independent evaluation team, led by Ivor Groves, M.D., conducted its
evaluation in April. The 18-member team reviewed data compiled by the state
and ValueOptions and interviewed numerous stakeholders, including
ValueOptions management and staff, case managers, providers, juvenile court
staff, child welfare staff, special education staff, families and
advocates. It also conducted an indepth analysis of care received by
children in 41 cases.

The team concluded that:

  -- The substance abuse and mental health services provided by Medicaid
      fail to meet both professional norms and the state's own standards
      of practice.

  -- Children with complex needs receive poor services and as a result
      often become enmeshed in the child welfare system, the juvenile
      justice system or both.

  -- Neither the state nor ValueOptions is providing the leadership
      needed to improve the system.

  -- The system creates numerous barriers to service. ValueOptions'
      authorization process is especially problematic.

The team found that the system performed basic functions essential to the
delivery of services less than 50 percent of the time. Those functions
included understanding the child's needs, developing a service plan
responsive to those needs and ensuring that the plan was implemented.

                        ValueOptions' response

ValueOptions agrees that the system is underfunded and improvements can be
made, but the company questions the report's methodology, Sally Ordini, a
spokeswoman for the company's Arizona operations, told ADAW.

The report draws some strong conclusions from a small number of cases,
Ordini said. And the report tended to ignore system improvements since the
first court-ordered report in 1998. More children are being served, she
said, and they are showing better outcomes.

Ronan says the sample size was all that the state agreed to pay for, and
that after discussing the matter in court, the state agreed it would not
dispute the report's findings based on the sample size. The DHS also tried
to cancel the contract for the evaluation team in January, but the court
ordered that the review be conducted as planned.

Cases were analyzed nine months after ValueOptions took over the system,
Ordini said, which doesn't accurately represent the stability and
improvements the program is making, such as greater access to services,
newer medications and an expanded crisis-response system.

Maricopa County's population is about 3 million and growing rapidly.
Officials have estimated that the population is increasing by about 8,000 a
month. ValueOptions provides about 40,000 units of service a month, of
which about 12,000 are for children. About 2,000 new consumers enter the
program each month, Ordini said.

ValueOptions' contract for Maricopa County runs for three years and is
valued at $ 510 million. The state has the option of renewing the contract
for an additional two years.

Causes of system failure identified in the report include:

  * A malfunctioning service authorization process.

  * Front-line staff with insufficient skills and supports.

  * Unavailability of substance abuse treatment, respite care and
    wraparound services.

  * Lack of coordination with schools, juvenile courts and other
    agencies.

In order to achieve effective front-line practice, the system needs more
than policy tweaking and minor funding adjustments, the report states. Its
recommendations include:

  * A fundamental reassessment of the organization, resources and
     approach currently being used to provide behavioral health services
     to children.

  * A reorientation toward meaningful outcomes, such as school success,
     a stable living situation and sober and lawful behavior.

  * Immediate attention to front-line staff training.

  * The development of adequate levels of intensive in-home services,
     respite care and wraparound services.

  * Active participation of the school, child welfare and juvenile
     justice systems. IAC-ACC-NO: 64394460 (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse
     Weekly, July 31, 2000)


GREAT WHITE: Krage & Janvey Announces TX Suit Re Unregistered Securities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released on August 28 by Krage & Janvey, L.L.P.:

On July 31, 2000, Dr. John Brizzolara, M.D., William H. Fox, and Dr. J.
Walt Stallings, M.D. filed a Class Action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter, Paragon Capital Corporation, Glenn Michael Financial, Inc.,
Harvestons Securities, Inc., Josephthal & Co., Inc., Drake Capital
Securities, Equitrade Securities, Westminster Securities, Barron Chase
Securities, Taylor Stuart Securities, Bristol Asset Management, Augustine
Fund, L.P., GEM Investment Advisory, Parthenon Investment Corp., Trafalgar
Strategic Investment Fund, NISMIC Sales Corp., Joseph Kavanagh, Robert
Cooke, Karl Birkenfeld, Andrew Left (aka Henry Lipton), Michael Manis, and
Irving Ayash arising from the sale of unregistered securities of Great
White Marine & Recreation, Inc. (f/k/a Tiger Shark International, Inc.)

Plaintiffs allege the Defendants unlawfully distributed unregistered GWMR's
common stock to the Class as part of a fraudulent scheme. Members of the
Class are persons who purchased shares of GWMR common stock in the
Over-the-Counter market during the period from January 4, 1998, to and
including July 29, 1999. The specific allegations against the Defendants
include civil conspiracy, fraud, and sales of unregistered securities, in
violation of Federal Securities Laws. The Plaintiffs and members of the
Class seek rescission and money damages.

Any persons who purchased GWMR shares during the class period may file a
motion with the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas [Waco] not later than sixty (60) days after this Notice is published,
to request that the Court appoint them as lead Plaintiff of the Class. The
address of the U.S. District Court Clerk is 800 Franklin Avenue, Room 303,
P.O. Box 608, Waco, Texas 76703.

Contact: Phillip Offill of Krage & Janvey, L.L.P., 214-969-7500


HAWAII: Fails to Fix Special Ed Programs; Court Holds State in contempt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action spanning most of the past decade, the U.S. District
Court, District of Hawaii held the state of Hawaii in contempt for failing
to bring its special education programs in line with the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act and Section 504. Felix by Servietti-Coleman v.
Cayetano, 32 IDELR 230 (D. Hawaii 2000).

The class action was initiated in 1993 by a group of students with mental
health needs. In 1994 the parties entered into a consent decree in which
the state agreed to "implement a seamless system of care." Following
modifications to the decree and the state's subsequent noncompliance, 141
benchmarks were established to gauge the state's progress toward compliance
in each of its school facilities. The class charged that the state failed
to comply with the decree and asked the court to find it in contempt.

The court found that the state failed to meet many of the most significant
benchmarks, such as modifying its facilities and updating personnel
procedures. The state also could have offered special incentives, higher
salaries, or better working conditions to attract qualified special
education teachers, but it did not. The state was unable to satisfactorily
explain why it did not meet the benchmarks, whose deadlines the court
termed "firm but manageable."

While it made progress, the court scolded the state for failing to take
"every reasonable step" to comply with the decree. A good faith effort to
comply was also irrelevant, for all that was required to find the state in
contempt was noncompliance with the decree. The court ordered further
hearings to determine the appropriate relief. (School Law Bulletin, August
23, 2000)


MICROSOFT CORP: RI Superior Ct Judge Throws out Local Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A Superior Court judge has thrown out a local lawsuit against Microsoft
Corp. that tried to piggyback on an earlier success of an antitrust suit
against the software giant. The class-action suit, filed by a Providence
doctor and law firm, accused Microsoft of using its "monopoly power" to
overcharge for the Windows 98 operating system. Judge Michael Silverstein
said state law bars the suit because the parties did not buy the software
directly from Microsoft.

The suit was filed by Dr. Santini Siena and Yesser, Glasson & Dineen. It
was one of a dozen lawsuits filed across the country by private companies
and individuals against Microsoft, The Providence Journal reported.

Several state courts have already ruled on the matters, dismissing lawsuits
on the same grounds that Silverstein did, according to Jeffrey Schreck,
their lawyer. Silverstein ruled that federal and state law permits only
"direct purchasers" to file such claims.

The suit was filed on behalf of an estimated 20,000 Rhode Islanders who
bought Windows 98, alleging they were charged "a monopoly price in excess
of what Microsoft would have been able to charge in a competitive market."
They asked Microsoft to pay the difference between the prices the company
actually charged for the software and the prices it would have charged if
the company did not dominate the market, according to the complaint filed
March 31. "Because of its monopoly power, Microsoft charged the higher,
revenue-maximizing price, not a competitive price," the lawsuit alleged.

In June, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled Microsoft had
violated the nation's antitrust laws and ordered the company be split.

Microsoft appealed. Now the company and prosecutors are bickering over the
site of the appeal: Microsoft wants it heard in a federal appellate court,
while prosecutors want it held before the U.S. Supreme Court. (The
Associated Press State & Local Wire, August 28, 2000)


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: TX Law Firm Claims Accessibility Violations under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolstered by a recent federal appeals court ruling saying that foreign flag
cruise ships may be subjected to ADA accessibility requirements, a Texas
law firm has filed two class action lawsuits claiming that a foreign cruise
line violated the ADA and state law by failing to provide adequate access
to people with mobility impairments and their traveling companions. The
suit is important because it expands upon the theory of liability that has
traditionally been put forth in these cases, by adding new plaintiffs,
defendants and claims.

Elaine B. Roberts of Houston's Bruckner Burch LLC filed the suits earlier
this month. They claim that Norwegian Cruise Lines, believed to be
incorporated in the Bahamas, subjects passengers with disabilities to
illegal surcharges for accessible cabins and subjects such passengers to
illegal architectural barriers on cruises. Both suits are filed on behalf
of Douglas Spector, who uses an electric scooter due to a mobility
impairment; his wife Ana Spector, who does not have a disability but
travels with him; and wheelchair user Julia Hollenbeck. The defendant has a
ship called the M/S Norwegian Sea, which regularly sails to and from the
Port of Houston.

The federal suit, which asserts a violation of Title III of the ADA, has
some interesting factual allegations. Because passengers with disabilities
are not permitted to participate in discount programs, it says, they are
subjected to illegal surcharges. It addition, Roberts alleges that the
defendant illegally requires people with mobility impairments to travel
with someone who would be able to assist them in the event of an emergency.
In addition, she says, Norwegian does not have an evacuation plan in place
for people with mobility impairments. She adds that the plaintiffs were
told before embarking on a cruise that the ships programs were accessible,
only to be confronted with access barriers. "Unbelievably," she says, "when
high-ranking NCL agents were confronted with passenger complaints of
discriminatory treatment and proof that the ADA applied to cruise ships,
NCL showed no remorse or willingness to change their policies[.]"

In June, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Stevens v. Premier
Cruises Inc., 215 F.3d 1237, 18 NDLR 126 (11th Cir. 2000) that ADA
accessibility requirements may apply to foreign-flag cruise ships that
operate in U.S. waters).

The federal complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as
attorney's fees and costs. (Disability Compliance Bulletin, August 25,
2000)


OLYMPICS ORGANISERS: Blind Man to Sue over Web Site Accessibility
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By Judy Skatssoon SYDNEY, Aug 28 AAP - A blind man will seek damages in
court from Sydney Olympic organisers after they refused to comply with an
order to make their website more accessible to him.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) found Games
organiser SOCOG had unlawfully discriminated against Bruce Maguire by
failing to make accessible to him key parts of its website, including its
results page. "The complainant was clearly the recipient of less favourable
treatment by the respondent in that he was unable to access the services
offered ... by means of its website or at best he was offered imperfect or
limited access only," said inquiry commissioner William Carter, QC. He
ordered SOCOG to make the site accessible to Mr Maguire by the beginning of
the Games on September 15. The central and most involved part of the order
was a requirement to reformat the results tables so Mr Maguire could access
them.

But SOCOG spokesman Milton Cockburn said it was not feasible for SOCOG to
do this because it would cost $2 million and take more than a year to
complete. "Sydney 2000 is committed to ensuring accessibility to
vision-impaired users to as much of its site as possible where this can be
achieved in a time and cost effective manner," Mr Cockburn told AAP. "IBM's
advice to us is that it is not feasible to meet Mr Maguire's demands that
real time results tables can be reformated for his use. "This would cost in
excess of $2 million and take 368 days to complete." SOCOG would therefore
not comply with this order "because of the cost and huge amount of time
involved", Mr Cockburn said.

Mr Maguire's lawyer, Simon Moran, who estimated the cost to SOCOG at
between $30,000 and $40,000, said the timeframe meant his client would have
to wait until after the Olympics before pursuing the matter in the Federal
Court. He blamed this on deliberate "delaying tactics" by SOCOG, which was
exploiting the fact the HREOC orders are non-binding.

Commenting before SOCOG's response to the decision, Mr Maguire vowed he
would lead a class action for compensation if SOCOG did not make the
required changes. Mr Moran said the most likely course of action was that
Mr Maguire would return to HREOC after the Olympics to pursue a class
action seeking an award for damages. The action would then go before the
Federal Court for enforcement. It was Mr Maguire's third action against the
Olympic organisers. Last year HREOC found SOCOG had discriminated against
him for not making ticket order forms available in braille. SOCOG also had
agreed to provide braille copies of the Olympic Souvenir Program following
a complaint by Mr Maguire, but was yet to act on this, Mr Moran said. (AAP
NEWSFEED, August 28, 2000)


RAINFOREST CAFE: Emerges from MN Securities Suit Re Proposed Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company and certain directors are named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuit, In re: Rainforest Cafe, Inc. Shareholders'
Litigation. This is a consolidation of three lawsuits, Billie Mack v. Lyle
Berman, et al., Robert Fink v. Rainforest Cafe, Inc., et al., and Heartland
Group, Inc. v. Rainforest Cafe, Inc., et al. filed on December 23, 1999,
January 13, 2000 and March 27, 2000, respectively. The actions were filed
in Hennepin County District Court of Minnesota, alleging that defendants
breached their fiduciary duty and engaged in unfair dealing to the
detriment of the holders of Rainforest Cafe common stock in connection with
a proposed merger of the Company with Landry's. By order dated June 12,
2000, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, but reserved plaintiffs'
claim for attorney fees. A hearing on the claim for attorney fees is
scheduled for August 16, 2000.


VISUAL NETWORKS: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine announces that the class action previously
commenced on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Visual Networks,
Inc. (Nasdaq: VNWK) ("Visual Networks" or the "Company") has been expanded
to include February 7, 2000 through August 22, 2000 inclusive, (the
"Expanded Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued to
the investing public false and misleading statements concerning Visual
Networks' acquisition of Avesta Technologies Inc. ("Avesta"), especially by
failing to disclose problems related to integrating Avesta into the
Company, and concerning the sale of the Company's core products. The
complaint further alleges that, following disclosure of the true state of
the Company's affairs about the Avesta integration problems and weakening
revenues, its common stock plummeted more than $14.00, about 54%.

Contact: Counsel for Class Plaintiffs, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Shareholder
Relations Manager, 800-417-7305, or 215-963-0600, fax: 888-417-7306, or
215-963-0838, or msgoldman@barrack.com


VISUAL NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Lawsuit in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit was filed on August 9, 2000, on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Visual Networks Inc. (NASDAQ: VNWK) between February
7, 2000 and July 5, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland.

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 issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between
February 7, 2000, and July 5, 2000.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/visual/

Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP Steven G. Schulman or
Samuel H. Rudman Phone number: (800) 320-5081 Email:
visualcase@milbergNY.com Website: http://www.milberg.com


WARNACO GROUP: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley & Geller, LLP announced that it has filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all individuals and institutional investors that
purchased the common stock of Warnaco Group, Inc. (NYSE:WAC) between
December 11, 1997 and July 20, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by providing materially
false and misleading information about the strong sales of Warnaco's
existing Calvin Klein products, and its purported strong revenues and
earnings, together with the quality and value of its inventory. The
complaint further alleges that, defendants' engaged in a fraudulent scheme
and course of business that (i) deceived the investing public regarding
Warnaco's prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflated the prices of
Warnaco's common stock; (iii) allowed defendants to sell over 1 million
shares of their Warnaco stock for $14.6 million in insider trading
proceeds; (iv) allowed defendants to use Warnaco stock as currency to fund
its stock-for-stock acquisitions; and (v) caused plaintiff and other
members of the Class to purchase Warnaco common stock at inflated prices.
As a result of these false and misleading statements the Company's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. When the
truth about the Company was revealed, the price of the stock dropped
significantly.

Contact: Cauley & Geller, LLP, Boca Raton Sue Null, Jackie Addison or
Sharon Jackson Toll Free: 888/551-9944 E-mail: Cauleypa@aol.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Eastern Environment Shareholders Sue over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
The former shareholders of Eastern Environment Services have filed a
proposed class action against Waste Management Inc., the largest trash
hauler in North America, and certain officers and directors, asserting it
did not disclose the extent of its financial problems prior to Eastern's
merger and stock swap with the company in December 1998. Miller et al. v.
Waste Management Inc. et al., No. 00C-06-257RRC, complaint filed (Del.
Super. Ct., June 29, 2000).

In the $1.15 billion swap, the stockholders received 0.6406 shares of WMI
common stock for each Eastern share, for a total of about 24.5 million WMI
shares. However, it was not until seven months after the merger that the
market was shocked by the news of a $1.23 billion after-tax charge
attributed to problems with the original merger of the old Waste Management
and USA Waste that formed WMI.

The merger between the former Waste Management and USA Waste in July 1998
was touted as a blending of the two companies' synergies, and was expected
to save at least $800 million in costs due to enhanced efficiencies.

WMI had reported a decrease in general and administrative costs due to the
company's ability to integrate its acquisitions. In addition, WMI said
income increased (as a percentage of operating revenues) due to the
economies of scale realized by the newly formed entity. WMI shares were
trading as high as $53 per share between August and December 1998.

After revenue shortfalls for the second quarter of 1999 were revealed, the
stock plummeted 37 percent in one day, to a low of $32 per share. Moreover,
due to the high volume of trading, the company lost about $12 billion in
market value that, according to the complaint, was one of the most massive
single day losses in U.S. corporate finance history.

The stock continued to drop when earning expectations for the second
quarter of 1999 were revised, falling an additional 17 percent to close at
$25.9375. In August 1999, the company announced it would restate its
first-quarter earnings due in part to mistakes in calculating reserves for
environmental cleanup. The next day, WMI's stock fell to $22.25.

But the largest blow to the company's reputation occurred on Nov. 9, 1999,
when the staggering $1.23 billion charge was announced. WMI said it was in
part due to problems with converting millions of customers from the former
Waste Management's billing system to the new system.

Although the charge was taken in the third quarter of 1999, it was
admittedly related to prior periods. The company's stock continued its
decline to close at $17.9375 and, to date, has not recovered.

The Eastern shareholders are alleging violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act for failure to make full and complete
disclosures in the registration statement and prospectus provided to them
before their merger.

In June of this year, WMI settled with the Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding charges that it misled investors starting in the
spring of 1999 with its overly optimistic projections. According to
published reports, the SEC's order may be favorable to the company because
it delineates a relatively short period of time during which the company
actively misled investors.

There are other numerous class actions already consolidated against the
company for securities fraud pending in the Southern District of Texas. The
Eastern shareholders filed a separate action to ensure that the class
period and their concerns are covered by the litigation.

The Eastern shareholders are represented by Karen L. Morris and James A.
McShane of Morris & Morris in Wilmington, Del.; Merrill G. Davidoff, Peter
Nordberg, Lawrence J. Lederer and Lane L. Vines of Berger & Montague in
Philadelphia and R. Bruce McNew of Taylor & McNew in Greenville, Del.
(Delaware Corporate Litigation Reporter, August 7, 2000)


WATER CONTAMINATION: Lawyers Advocate Ct Overseeing Ontario Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario government's initiative to compensate victims of the
tainted-water tragedy must be overseen by the courts, say lawyers leading a
class-action suit arising from the disaster.

That will be the key message the lawyers plan to deliver at a meeting
tonight with residents of Walkerton, Ont., hundreds of whom have been
considering the government's compensation bid.

"There has been a push for the people to go ahead and accept the
compensation plan," said Tom White, one of a dozen lawyers from six law
firms involved in the $ 300-million class-action suit.

While White would only say the push is coming "from some of the other
parties involved," the lawyers say without judicial oversight, the process
is flawed.

What's more, they argue, turning the process over to the courts could
resolve the class-action suit without a protracted legal battle, saving
taxpayers a bundle.

The proposed class action arose out of the E. coli outbreak in May that
killed six and sickened up to 2,000. (The Calgary Sun, August 28, 2000)


WATER CONTAMINATION: Walkerton Utility Boss Wants to Be Heard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The man at the centre of controversy over the deadly E. coli virus that
contaminated the water supply in Walkerton, Ont., is among hundreds of
people who want to be heard at an independent probe into the crisis.

The Walkerton Inquiry Commission released a list of 41 applications for
standing, representing more than 80 groups and 200 individuals, at the
inquiry, set to begin in October.

Among them was the application of a group comprised of more than 200
victims and parents of children who were badly infected by the E. coli
bacteria, which was discovered in the town's water supply in mid-May.

Stan Koebel, the public utilities manager accused of failing to warn the
people of Walkerton about their water, is also on the list, as is the
Walkerton Public Utilities Commission, the area's public health board and
the Ontario government.

All four are named in a $ 300-million class-action lawsuit launched by a
number of Walkerton residents in recent weeks.

Koebel went into hiding soon after the public learned of the contamination
that killed six people and sickened up to 2,000. He has since returned to
his home and his job.

Dr. Murray McQuigge, medical officer of health for the area, who first
alerted the public to the bacterial outbreak, has also submitted a personal
application, as did his employer, the Bruce Grey Owen Sound Health Unit.

The groups, which range from physicians to cattle farmers, citizens to
politicians, all want input on the disaster that made headlines across the
country. "I think this is the kind of result you get with this type of
situation," said Bruce Davidson, a founding member of Concerned Walkerton
Citizens, a grassroots group that has applied for standing.

Davidson's lawyers, with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, were
notified that a "flurry" of applications were submitted within the last
week, he said.

The deadline was Friday.

Walkerton residents are entering their 14th week without tap water.
Davidson said he's been told it could be as late as October before their
water is declared safe. (The Edmonton Sun, August 28, 2000)


YBM MAGNEX: Canadian Law Firm Named in Shareholders’ Suit in U.S.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bay Street law firm of Cassels Brock and Blackwell and a partner in its
securities practice have been added to a U.S. lawsuit brought by
shareholders who lost money in the collapse of YBM Magnex International
Inc. on indications it was laundering money for Russian organized crime. It
is the first time a Canadian law firm has been named as a defendant in a
class action for its conduct in advising a publicly traded company,
securities experts said.

Five Canadian brokerage houses involved in underwriting a new issue of YBM
shares in 1997 have also been added to the suit: National Bank Financial
Corp., formerly known as First Marathon Securities Ltd.; Griffiths McBurney
& Partners; ScotiaMcLeod Inc.; Canaccord Capital Corp.; and HSBC James
Capel Canada Inc., the former Gordon Capital Corp. None of the brokerage
houses chose to comment.

The case, which is open to Canadian shareholders, is scheduled to go to
trial in U.S. District Court at the end of February.

The supplemental complaint filed on Aug. 21 adds the law firm, which was
YBM's Canadian general counsel, as well as Lawrence Wilder, the partner
regularly assigned to handle YBM's business. 'From the earliest days  these
defendants knew facts showing YBM was not a law-abiding, up-and-coming
corporation, but gave advice and took steps calculated to shield the truth
from the investing public,' according to the document on file at the
courthouse in Philadelphia. 'Thousands of investors relied on the false and
incomplete public disclosures prepared for the company by Wilder and
Cassels Brock; and these investors suffered immense losses when the truth
about YBM -- so long concealed by Wilder and Cassels Brock -- came to
light.'

David Peterson, former Ontario premier and chairman of Cassels Brock, was
named in the original YBM suit filed in 1998. He sat on YBM's board of
directors. Mr. Peterson denies all allegations of wrongdoing and filed a
defence in May saying he 'acted in good faith at all times.' He has also
filed a cross-claim against YBM, alleging the company, through its
management, concealed material information from him to induce him to join
the board and remain there. However, the new defendants have yet to submit
their legal responses. They may file motions to dismiss, arguing the case
against them should be thrown out.

YBM, a Canadian magnet manufacturer, was widely touted to the North
American investing public as a rising star on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The lawsuit says shareholders were never told of a litany of troubling
signs: from evidence Russian crime figures were its founding shareholders
and had been receiving 'commissions,' to the fact YBM was under
investigation by the U.S. government, and warnings by YBM's own
investigators of a clear connection between Russian mobsters and members of
YBM's management, including its chief operating officer.

According to the new filing, the Fairfax Group, investigators hired by YBM,
travelled to the company's key subsidiary in Budapest in 1997 and found
records 'kept in milk cartons in a damp basement; receipts for equipment
purchased from the original investors that appeared brand new, even though
the transactions had occurred years earlier; invoices for large dollar
figures  addressed to post office boxes.'

Shareholders were not informed. 'YBM, on the specific and repeated
directions and advice of defendants Wilder and Cassels Brock, made no
public disclosure of the results of the Fairfax work, or the adverse
material facts it uncovered.'

The filing also refers to a questionnaire sent to YBM's original Russian
shareholders in December, 1996 -- almost 18 months before the company's
collapse that warned 'events are currently unfolding in the United States
and Canada that could destroy our company in a short time. 'Our Western
securities lawyers [namely Wilder, and Cassels Brock] tell us that we are
very close to having an obligation to disclose these allegations to the
general public. If that were to happen, our stock could be worthless in a
short period of time.'

According to the supplemental complaint, Mr. Wilder and Cassels Brock were
at the very least aware of the contents, yet 'directed the company  to
remain silent about the truth, allowing YBM's private and public sales of
stock to continue.' YBM raised $100-million on the TSE through a new common
share issue 11 months later. The underwriters, including co-leads First
Marathon and Griffiths McBurney, also ignored persistent problems,
according to the filing.

'Several of these same defendants had personally visited the company's
Hungarian facilities, where they observed or had access to the same
information as Fairfax,' it stated. 'These defendants were also privy to
the findings of fictitious sales, missing customers, and unreliable sales
documentation. With actual knowledge of and ready access to material
non-public information that revealed gross irregularities at YBM, the
unqualified certification in the 1997 prospectus by the underwriter
defendants amounted to at least a reckless deception of the investing
public.' (National Post (formerly The Financial Post), August 28, 2000)


YORK AND DABICH: Demand Excuse Rule Inapplicable to Two Person Board
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of a two-person board of directors, Delaware's rule that
pre-suit demand is excused only where a majority of the directors are
self-interested cannot be taken literally, said Vice Chancellor Leo Strine.
In an issue of first impression ruling, the judge refused to dismiss a suit
against two defendants -- who once made up the full board of directors of
Carnet Holdings Corp. -- because even one interested director could have
blocked a move to have Carnet take up the derivative suit. Beneville v.
York and Dabich. (Delaware Corporate Litigation Reporter, August 7, 2000)


                              *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, DC. Theresa Cheuk, Managing Editor.

Copyright 1999.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.


                    * * *  End of Transmission  * * *