CAR_Public/001012.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, October 12, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 199

                             Headlines

II-VI INC: San Diego Superior Ct Dismisses Breach of Fiduciay Duty Claim
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suits in US Re Syrup/Citric Acid/Lysine
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suit over Sale of Lysine in Canada
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Canadian Anticompetition Suits Re Citric Acid Sale
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Mexico & EC Anticompetitive Action Re Citric Acid

ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Monosodium Glutamate Suits in Fd & State Courts
ARCHER DANIELS: Fined by U.S. Re Sale of Lysine and Corn Syrup
ARCHER DANIELS: Sale of Amino Acid Cause of EC Fine for Anticompetition
CHURCHES: Ontario AG Suggests Looking to South Africa for Guidance
CIGNA, ACE: Sued for Refusing to Pay Dividend on Workers' Compensation

COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Softball Players Sue over Lack of Field on Campus
COMTEX NEWS: Investor Sues for Damages from False News Release on Emulex
FEDERAL DEPOSIT: Black Workers May Get $14 Mil Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Calif. Judge Orders 1.7 Mil Cars and Trucks Recall
GENDERM CORP: Class May Be Certified after Ruling on Director Liability

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Industry Asks State-Owned Firms to Share
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Germans Industry Admits Failure in Raising Fund
INTERSPEED, INC:  Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
MOBIL OIL: Tells Aust Senate No Business Collapsed Because of Dirty Fuel
QWEST: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit over Installation Delays in CO

VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: 6 Chemical Firms to Pay Extra $400 Mil
VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: BASF to Share $82M in $255M Settlement
VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: Mankers Agree to Pay Washington State  $10.6 Mil

                              *********

II-VI INC: San Diego Superior Ct Dismisses Breach of Fiduciay Duty Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 14, 2000, II-VI INC increased its ownership in Laser Power
Corporation from approximately 13% to approximately 88%, giving the Company
a controlling interest. This approximately 75% additional ownership was
acquired for a total consideration of approximately $22.3 million in cash
and the issuance of 739,000 shares of the Company's common stock. II-VI
intends to complete the acquisition of Laser Power Corporation via a
second-step merger in October 2000.

As previously reported in the CAR, on June 13, 2000, a complaint naming
Laser Power Corporation and certain current and former directors of the
company as defendants was served on Laser Power. The complaint seeks to
assert a breach of fiduciary duty claim, and requests class action relief.
It is styled C. Oliver Burt, III v. Laser Power Corp., et al., Case No GIC
749273 (San Diego Superior Court).

                             Update

On September 1, 2000, the Superior Court dismissed the claim regarding this
complaint against Laser Power, without leave to amend. The Court also
dismissed the claim against the directors, with leave to amend.

Laser Power had previously entered into indemnification contracts with each
of its officers and directors, including the directors who were named
defendants in the complaint. As a result, Laser Power is paying the
expenses of the directors in defending themselves in this matter subject to
reimbursement under its insurance policies. Subject to certain limited
exceptions, Laser Power will reimburse the directors for any monetary
damages assessed against the individual directors that are not covered by
Laser Power's insurance policies.


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suits in US Re Syrup/Citric Acid/Lysine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in
thirty-one antitrust suits involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup
in the United States.  Thirty of these actions have been brought as
putative class actions.

                     Federal Actions Re Corn Syrup

Twenty-two of these putative class actions allege violations of federal
antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high
fructose corn syrup, and seek injunctions against  continued alleged
illegal conduct,  treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees
and costs,  and other unspecified relief. The putative classes  in  these
cases comprise  certain  direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup
during certain periods in the 1990s. These twenty-two actions have been
transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois and consolidated under the caption  In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1087 and Master File No. 95-1477.

On January 14, 1997, the Company, along with other companies, was named a
defendant in a non-class action antitrust suit involving the sale of high
fructose corn syrup and corn syrup. This action which is encaptioned Gray &
Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al, No. 97- 69-AS, and was filed in
federal court in Oregon, alleges violations of federal antitrust laws and
Oregon and Michigan state antitrust laws, including allegations that
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of
corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup, and seeks treble damages,
attorneys' fees and costs  of an unspecified amount. This action  was
transferred for pretrial proceedings to the United States District Court
for the Central District of Illinois.

                       CA Sate Action Re Corn Syrup

The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant
in seven putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state
court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup. These California
actions allege violations of  the California  antitrust and unfair
competition  laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high
fructose corn syrup, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount,
attorneys fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. One of
the California putative classes comprises certain direct purchasers of high
fructose corn syrup in the State of California during certain periods in
the 1990s. This action was filed on October 17, 1995 in Superior Court for
the County of Stanislaus, California and encaptioned Kagome Foods, Inc. v
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. et al., Civil Action No. 37236.

This action has been removed to federal court and consolidated with the
federal class action litigation pending in the Central District of Illinois
referred to above. The other six California putative classes comprise
certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and dextrose in the
State of California during certain periods in the 1990s. One such action
was filed on July 21, 1995 in the Superior Court of  the County of Los
Angeles, California and is encaptioned Borgeson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Co., et al., Civil Action No. BC131940. This action and four other indirect
purchaser actions have been coordinated before a single court in Stanislaus
County, California under the caption, Food Additives (HFCS) cases, Master
File No. 39693. The other four actions are encaptioned, Goings v. Archer
Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil 23 Page 24 Item 3. LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS-Continued

Action No. 750276 (Filed on July 21, 1995, Orange County Superior Court);
Rainbow Acres v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No.
974271 (Filed on November 22, 1995, San Francisco County Superior Court);
Patane Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 212610  (Filed
on January 17, 1996, Sonoma County Superior Court); and St. Stan's Brewing
Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 37237 (Filed on
October 17, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court). On October 8, 1997,
Varni Brothers Corp. filed a complaint  in  intervention with  respect  to
the coordinated action pending in Stanislaus County Superior Court,
asserting the same claims as those advanced in the consolidated class
action.

             CA Action Re Corn Syrup/Citric Acid

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in
five putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of both high
fructose corn syrup and citric acid. Two of these actions allege violations
of the California antitrust and  unfair competition  laws, including
allegations  that  the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at
artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric
acid, and seek treble damages of an  unspecified amount, attorneys fees
and  costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. The putative class in
one of these California cases comprises certain direct purchasers of high
fructose corn syrup and citric acid in the State of California during the
period January 1, 1992 until at least October 1995. This action was filed
on October 11, 1995 in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, California
and is entitled Gangi Bros. Packing Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et
al., Civil Action No. 37217.

The putative class in the other California case comprises certain indirect
purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid in the state of
California during the period October 12, 1991 until November 20, 1995. This
action was filed on November 20, in the Superior Court of San Francisco
County and is encaptioned MCFH, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al.,
Civil Action No. 974120.

The California Judicial Council has bifurcated the citric acid and high
fructose corn syrup claims in these actions and coordinated them with other
actions in San Francisco County Superior Court and Stanislaus County
Superior Court.

The Company accepted a  settlement agreement with counsel for the citric
acid plaintiff class. This settlement received final court approval and the
case was dismissed on September 30, 1998.

      CA Action Re High Fructose Corn Syrup/Citric Acid/Lysine

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in
six putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court
involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine.
These  actions allege violations of the California antitrust  and  unfair
competition laws,  including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high
fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine, and seek treble damages of
an unspecified amount, attorneys fees  and costs, restitution and other
unspecified relief.

One of the putative classes comprises certain direct purchasers of high
fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine in the State of California
during a certain period in the 1990s. This action was filed on December 18,
1995 in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County, California and is
encaptioned Nu Laid Foods, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al.,
Civil Action No. 39693.

The other five putative classes comprise certain indirect purchasers of
high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine in the State of
California during certain periods in the 1990s. One such action was filed
on December 14, 1995 in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County,
California and is encaptioned Batson Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al.,
Civil Action No. 39680. The other actions are encaptioned Nu Laid Foods,
Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No 39693 (Filed on December 18,
1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court); Abbott v. Archer Daniels Midland
Co., et al., No. 41014 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County
Superior Court); Noldin v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et  al., No. 41015
(Filed on December 21,  1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court); Guzman v.
Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41013 (Filed on December 21, 1995,
Stanislaus County Superior Court) and Ricci v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.,
et al., No. 96-AS-00383 (Filed on February 6, 1996, Sacramento County
Superior Court). The plaintiffs in these actions and the lysine defendants
have executed a settlement agreement that has been approved by the court
and the California Judicial Council has bifurcated the citric acid and high
fructose corn syrup claims and coordinated them with other actions in San
Francisco County Superior Court and Stanislaus County Superior Court.

               Alabama State Action Re Corn Syrup

The Company, along with other companies, also has been named a defendant in
a putative class action antitrust suit filed in Alabama state court. The
Alabama action alleges  violations of the Alabama,  Michigan  and Minnesota
antitrust laws, including allegations that defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high
fructose corn syrup, and seeks an injunction against continued illegal
conduct, damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and
other unspecified relief. The putative class in the Alabama action
comprises certain indirect purchasers in Alabama, Michigan and Minnesota
during the period March 18, 1994 to March 18, This action was filed on
March 18, 1996 in the Circuit  Court of Coosa County, Alabama,  and  is
encaptioned Caldwell v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action
No. 96-17. On April 23, 1997, the court granted the defendants' motion to
sever and dismiss the non-Alabama claims.  On March 27, 2000, defendants
moved for summary judgment in light of a recent Alabama Supreme Court case
holding that the Alabama  antitrust laws apply only  to  intrastate
commerce. That matter is currently pending.

                     Alabama Action Re Lysine

The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other companies, in
one putative class action antitrust suit alleging violations of the
Alabama antitrust  laws,  including  allegations  that  the defendants
agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the
prices of lysine, and seeking an injunction against continued alleged
illegal conduct, damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and
costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action
comprises certain indirect purchasers of lysine in the State of Alabama
during certain periods in the 1990s. This action was filed on August 17,
1995 in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama, and is encaptioned
Ashley v. Archer-Daniels- Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-336. On
March 13, 1998, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended his complaint  to  add
approximately  300  individual plaintiffs. On March 23, 2000, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment in light of a recent Alabama Supreme
Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws apply only to intrastate
commerce. That motion is currently pending.

         West Virginia Action Re Corn Syrup, Citric Acid Sale

The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant
in at least one putative class action antitrust suit filed in West Virginia
state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid.
This action also alleges violations of the West Virginia antitrust laws,
including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and
maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup
and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount,
attorneys fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class
in the West Virginia action comprises certain entities within the State
of  West  Virginia that purchased  products containing high fructose corn
syrup and/or citric acid for resale from at least 1992 until 1994. This
action was filed on October 26, 1995, in the Circuit Court for Boone
County, West Virginia, and is encaptioned Freda's Archer-Daniels-Midland
Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-C-125.

           Columbia Action Re Corn Syrup and Citric Acid

The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant
in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in the Superior Court for
the District of Columbia involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and
citric acid. This action  alleges violations of the District of Columbia
antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high
fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an
unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.
The putative class in the District of Columbia action comprises  certain
persons within the District  of Columbia  that  purchased products
containing  high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during the period
January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994. This action was filed on April
12, 1996 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, and is
encaptioned Holder v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No.
96- 2975.

On November 13, 1998, plaintiff's motion for class certification was
granted.

              KS Action Re Corn Syrup and Citric Sale

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in a
putative class action antitrust suit filed in Kansas state court involving
the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action alleges
violations of the Kansas antitrust laws, including allegations that the
defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high
levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks
treble damages of an unspecified amount, court costs and other unspecified
relief. The putative class in the Kansas action comprises certain persons
within the State of Kansas that purchased products containing high fructose
corn syrup and/or citric acid during at least the period January 1, 1992
through December 31, This action was filed on May 7, 1996 in the District
Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas and is encaptioned Waugh v.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Case  No. 96-C-2029. Plaintiff's motion
for  class certification is currently pending.


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suit over Sale of Lysine in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company, along  with  other companies, has been named as a defendant in
one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Ontario Court (General
Division) in which the plaintiffs allege the defendants reached agreements
with one another as to the price at which each of them would sell lysine to
customers in Ontario and as to the total volume of lysine that each company
would supply in Ontario in violation of Sections 45 (1)(c) and 61(1)(b)of
the Competition Act.  The putative class is comprised of certain indirect
purchasers in Ontario during the period from June 1, 1992 to June 27, 1995.
The plaintiffs seek C$25 million for violations of the Competition Act,
C$10 million in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, interest and
costs of the action.  This action was served upon the Company on June 11,
1999 and  is encaptioned Rein Minnema and 24 Page 25 Item 3. LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS-Continued

Minnema Farms Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court File
No. G23495-99. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a
respondent in a motion seeking authorization to institute a class action
filed in Superior Court in the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal, in
which the applicants allege the respondents conspired, combined, agreed or
arranged to prevent or lessen, unduly, competition with respect to the sale
of lysine in Canada in violation of Section 45(1)(c) of the Competition
Act. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in
Quebec after June, 1992.  The applicants seek at least C$4,460,000, costs
of investigation, attorneys' fees and interest. This motion is encaptioned
Option Consommateurs, et al v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al.,
Court No. 500- 06-000089-991.


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Canadian Anticompetition Suits Re Citric Acid Sale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company, along with  other companies, has been named as a defendant in
three actions filed pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in which
the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Competition Act with
respect to the sale of citric acid in Canada.

One of these actions was filed in the Superior Court of Justice, in
Newmarket, Ontario, and  encaptioned  Ashworth v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Company, et al., Court file No. 53510/99. The putative class is comprised
of certain indirect purchasers in Ontario during the period from July 1,
1991 to June 27, The plaintiffs in this action seek general damages in the
amount of C$30 million and punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of
C$30  million, interest, costs and fees.

The second action was filed in the Superior Court of Justice in London,
Ontario, and encaptioned Fairlee Fruit Juice Limited v. Archer-
Daniels-Midland Company, et al.,  Court  File  No. 32562/99.  The
plaintiffs in this action seek general damages in the amount of C$300
million, punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of C$20  million,
interest, costs and fees.

The Company has become aware of, but has not yet been formally served with,
a third action commenced in Barrie, Ontario in the (Ontario) Superior Court
of Justice under the Class Proceedings Act.  In that action, encaptioned E.
D. Smith & Sons, Limited v. Archer Daniels Midland Company et al., Court
File No. 99-B673, the putative class is persons or corporations who were
resident or carried on business in Ontario and who were direct and indirect
purchasers of citric acid between July 1, 1991 and July 27, 1995. The
action claims damages in the amount of C$24,000,000 for breach of the
Competition Act, conspiracy and infliction of economic injury, plus
C$10,000,000 for punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, plus interest
and costs.

All three Ontario actions referred to above have now been transferred to
Toronto, Ontario. The Company, along with other companies, has been named
as  a respondent in a motion seeking authorization to institute a class
action filed in Superior Court in the Province of Quebec, District of
Montreal, in which the applicants allege the respondents comprised,
combined, agreed  or arranged to prevent or lessen, unduly, competition
with respect to the sale of citric acid in Canada  in violation of Section
45(1)(c)  of  the Competition Act. The putative class is comprised of
certain indirect purchasers in Quebec since July, 1991. The  applicants
seek  C$3,115,000,  the  costs  of investigation, attorneys' fees and
interest.  This motion is encaptioned Option Consommateurs, et al. v.
Archer-Daniels-Midland-Company, et al., Court No.500-06- 000094-991.


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Mexico & EC Anticompetitive Action Re Citric Acid
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 1997, the Company received a request for information from the
Commission of  the  European Communities with respect  to  an investigation
being conducted by that Commission into the possible existence of certain
agreements and/or concerted practices in the citric acid market in the
European Union.  On March 28, 2000, the Commission of European
Communities  initiated  formal  proceedings against the Company and others
and adopted a Statement of Objections. In November 1998, a European
subsidiary of the Company received a request for information from the
Commission of the European Communities with respect to an investigation
being conducted by that Commission into the possible existence of certain
agreements and/or concerted practices in the sodium gluconate market in the
European Union. On May 17, 2000, the Commission of European  Communities
initiated  formal  proceedings against the Company and others and adopted a
Statement of  Objections.

On February 11, 1999  a  Mexican subsidiary of the Company was notified
that the Mexican Federal  Competition  Commission  had  initiated  an
investigation as to possible anticompetitive practices in the citric acid
market in Mexico. On May 8, 2000, a Brazilian subsidiary of the Company was
notified of the commencement of an administrative proceeding by the
Department of Protection and Economic Defense relative to possible
anticompetitive practices in the lysine market in Brazil.  On July 3, 2000,
the Brazilian subsidiary of the Company filed a Statement of Defense in
this  proceeding.  The  ultimate  outcome  and materiality of the
proceedings of the Commission of the European Communities cannot presently
be determined. The Company may become the subject of similar antitrust
investigations conducted by the applicable regulatory authorities of other
countries.


ARCHER DANIELS: Fined by U.S. Re Sale of Lysine and Corn Syrup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal grand juries in the Northern Districts  of Illinois, California and
Georgia, under the direction of the DOJ, have been investigating possible
violations by Archer Daniels Midland Co and others with respect to the sale
of lysine, citric acid and high fructose corn syrup, respectively. In
connection with an agreement with the DOJ in fiscal 1997, the Company paid
the United States fines of $100 million. This agreement constitutes a
global resolution of all matters between the DOJ and the Company and
brought to a close all DOJ investigations of the Company. The federal grand
juries in the Northern Districts  of  Illinois (lysine) and Georgia  (high
fructose corn syrup) have been closed.


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Monosodium Glutamate Suits in Fd & State Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in
twelve putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of
monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers in the United
States.

                         Federal Actions

Eight of these putative class actions allege violations of federal
antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of monosodium
glutamate, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate, and seek various
relief, including treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees
and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes  in  these
cases comprise  certain  direct purchasers of monosodium glutamate,
disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate during certain periods in the
1990's to the present.

The Company says in its report with the SEC that it has never produced or
sold disodium inosinate or disodium guanylate.  One such action was filed
on October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California and is encaptioned Thorp, Inc. v. Archer-
Daniels-Midland Company, et al., NoC99 4752 (VRW).

The second action was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned
Premium Ingredients, Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 99
4742(MJJ).

The third action was filed on October 28, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Felbro
Food Products v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., No.C99 4761(MJJ).

The fourth action was filed on November 17, 1999 in the United States
District Court for  the Northern District of California  and  is
encaptioned First Spice Mixing Co., Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et
al., No. C 99 4977 (PJH).

The fifth action was filed on November 23, 1999 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey  and is encaptioned
Diversified  Foods  and Seasonings, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.,
Inc. et al., No. 99 CV 5501.

The sixth action was filed on December 16, 1999 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is encaptioned M.
Phil Yen, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co. Inc., et al., No. 99 Div 06514 (EK).

The seventh action was filed on January 27, 2000 in the Northern District
of California and is encaptioned Chicago Ingredients, Inc.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 00 0308 (JL).

The eighth action was filed on April 12, 2000 in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and is encaptioned Heller Seasonings & Ingredients, Inc. v.
Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 00-CV-1905. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these actions for coordinated
pretrial discovery in the United States District Court of the District of
Minnesota.

                              State Action

The Company, along with at least one other company, also has been named as
a defendant in four putative class action antitrust suits filed in
California state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or
other food flavor enhancers.

These actions allege violations of California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially  high levels the price of
monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers, and seek treble
damages of an unspecified amount, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these actions
comprise certain indirect purchasers of monosodium glutamate and/or other
food flavor enhancers in the State of California during certain periods in
the 1990's.

The first  action originally was filed on June 25, 1999 in the Superior
Court of San Francisco County and in encaptioned Fu's Garden Restaurant v.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Civil Action No. 304471.

The second action was filed on January 14, 2000 in the Superior Court of
San Francisco County and is encaptioned JMN Restaurant Management, Inc. v.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 309236.

The third action was filed on May 2, in the Superior Court of San Francisco
County and is encaptioned Tanuki Restaurant and Lilly Zapanta v. Archer
Daniels Midland Co., et al, Civil Action No. 311871.

The fourth action was filed on May 24, 2000 in the Superior Court of San
Francisco County and is encaptioned Tasty Sunrise Burgers v. Archer Daniels
Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 312373.

On June 19, 2000, the court consolidated all of these cases for pretrial
and trial purposes.


ARCHER DANIELS: Sale of Amino Acid Cause of EC Fine for Anticompetition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1997, Archer Daniels Midland Co and several of its European
subsidiaries were notified that the Commission of the European Communities
had initiated an investigation as to possible anticompetitive practices in
the amino acid markets, in particular the lysine market,  in  the European
Union.

On October 29, 1998, the Commission of the European Communities initiated
formal proceedings against the Company and others and adopted a Statement
of Objections. The reply of the Company was filed on February 1, 1999 and
the hearing was held on March 1, On August 8, 1999, the Commission of the
European Communities  adopted  a supplementary  Statement  of Objections
expanding the period of involvement as to certain  other companies.  On
June  7,  2000,  the Commission  of the European Communities  adopted  a
decision imposing a fine against the Company in the amount of EUR 47.3
million.

The Company intends to appeal this decision.


CHURCHES: Ontario AG Suggests Looking to South Africa for Guidance
------------------------------------------------------------------Churches
trying to settle thousands of claims stemming from allegations of abuse at
residential schools should look to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation
Commission for guidance, says Ontario's attorney general.

Jim Flaherty stopped short of endorsing the process, but he told a recent
gathering of Roman Catholic lawyers and judges it may offer "insights"into
a resolution. "It is a creative solution for addressing perhaps the most
complex social issue imaginable,"he told the St. Thomas More Society in
Toronto, cautioning he was "not advocating the same mechanism."

"It is a creative solution for addressing perhaps the most complex social
issue imaginable. South Africa set up a process for investigating human
rights violations during the apartheid period, paying reparations to
victims and ensuring their rehabilitation, and granting amnesty to those
who fully disclosed the facts of their offences,"Flaherty said.

The Anglican, United and Catholic Churches are expected to face a flood of
lawsuits stemming from allegations of abuse of natives at the church-run
schools. At least 100,000 natives attended the schools between 1874 and
1996. So far, nine class-action suits have been filed and at least 6,200
are suing for billions of dollars in damages.

The federal government has reportedly predicted the number of suits could
top 15,000 in ten years, leading the Anglican Church to warn it may be
broke before long. (Unlike the other Churches, the Catholics, who operated
51 schools, have no head office that can be sued.)

Flaherty said there needs to be an "alternative"to litigation in place to
resolve the matters. "I find it troubling that the federal government seems
to be in litigation mode these days," he said, in a speech that touched on
other areas where governments have come under attack.

He defended his government's plan to encourage victims of Walkerton, Ont.'s
tainted water to accept compensation and sign away their rights to sue.

About 2,000 people became sick and six died last spring after drinking
water tainted with the deadly E. coli. 0157:H7 bacteria. The water is still
unsafe to drink in the town.

A $300-million class-action suit has been filed against the province, the
town's public utilities commission, the town and the local health unit.

In June, the province, facing criticism over cuts to its Environment
ministry and changes in testing procedures, announced a compensation plan
for residents.

"We are also trying to do the right thing by the people of Walkerton,"said
Flaherty.

Victims submit financial claims to an independent adjuster, who makes a
counter offer. If they can't agree, it goes to a mediator and finally
binding arbitration. If the victims accept, they lose the right to sue.

"Our objective with this plan is to give people ready access to the
compensation they need to begin to rebuild their lives. We want to enable
those who have already been through so much to avoid the time and expense
of lawsuits while receiving fair and full compensation,"Flaherty said. (The
Lawyers Weekly, October 13, 2000)


CIGNA, ACE: Sued for Refusing to Pay Dividend on Workers' Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A central Pennsylvania company on October 10 filed a class action complaint
against insurance giants CIGNA (NYSE: CI) and ACE for their refusal to pay
dividends on a retention dividend workers compensation policy originally
purchased from CIGNA and then sold by CIGNA to ACE in 1999.

Highland Tank, a company based in Manheim, Pennsylvania, bought a workers'
compensation policy with CIGNA in 1998, and then renewed it in 1999. Under
a retention dividend policy, the insurer retains a portion of the premium
and the balance is eligible for return to the insured in payments called
"dividends," which are keyed to the losses that the insured experiences
during the policy period. In selling its retention dividend policies, CIGNA
gave its insureds documents called Net Cost Exhibits, which correlated
specific dollar dividends to specific losses. CIGNA also made promises of
long-term commitment to its retention dividend policies and insureds.

In January 1999, however, six months after selling Highland Tank the first
of the two policies, CIGNA announced that it had sold all of its U.S. and
international property and casualty business to ACE, including its
retention dividend policies, for the total price of $3.45 billion. The
formal transfer was completed on July 2, 1999. When they announced the
transaction, CIGNA and ACE assured CIGNA's policyholders that ACE would
continue business as usual, and Highland Tank renewed its policy in late
June 1999. Three months later, however, in the fall of 1999, ACE advised
that it had decided not to offer further renewals on the retention dividend
policies, and that it had sold the right of first refusal on those renewals
to Employers of Wausau, and three months after that, ACE advised that it
would not pay dividends on the retention dividend policies, on grounds that
the division that had issued those policies was not "a strategic fit" for
ACE and was not "profitable." Since dividends on CIGNA's retention dividend
policies are not paid until 27 months after a policy's inception, Highland
Tank stands to receive no dividends on either its 1998 or 1999 policy. The
dividends that Highland Tank stands to lose are approximately $200,000. The
complaint alleges that the amount at stake for the class is approximately
$27 million.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Highland Tank and all persons or
entities that purchased or renewed a retention dividend workers'
compensation policy from CIGNA, its affiliates or subsidiaries on or after
January 1, 1997, or from ACE on or after July 1, 1999. The complaint was
filed in Lancaster by Joseph F. Roda of the Lancaster firm of Roda & Nast.
Serving as co-counsel will be Paul Zevnik and the Washington, DC firm of
Zevnik Horton Guibord McGovern Palmer & Fognani, LLP.

Contact: Joseph F. Roda, Esquire of Roda & Nast, P.C., 717-892-3000


COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Softball Players Sue over Lack of Field on Campus
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A suburban community college has been sued in federal court over lack of a
softball field on campus and other bias claims.

The sexual discrimination lawsuit against Edmonds Community College was
filed in U.S. District Court by five softball players who are represented
by an Oklahoma law firm that specializes in such cases.

The plaintiffs say male athletes at the college have better locker rooms
and practice facilities, as well as better competition sites.

Documents filed with the case asked that it be certified as a class action
under a federal law banning gender bias in educational institutions that
receive federal money and under the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution.

Sharron Sellers, director of communications and marketing, said that
college officials had not seen the lawsuit, although it was filed Sept. 27.

"Edmonds Community College has a longstanding commitment to women's
athletics. Our commitment is genuine and meaningful under the law," Sellers
said.

She said the field once used by the softball team and by men's and women's
soccer teams was converted to a parking lot because of construction on
campus, including the addition of a higher education center to be shared by
a branch operation of Central Washington University.

Officials at the two-year school are trying to arrange for renovation of
the nearby Lynnwood High School athletic field to replace the soccer and
softball field, Sellers said.

That's not good enough, said Samuel Schiller, an Oklahoma attorney
representing the players.

"What has happened is they had a (men's) baseball field on campus, and they
had a softball field that wasn't as nice but it was at least on campus.
They tore down the softball field to make room for a parking lot, so they
moved the girls to Lynnwood High School," Schiller said. "It's clearly an
inferior field."

One plaintiff, Marylynne Zaugg, said she and her teammates once bought 40
bags of kitty litter to dry their old field after a rainy spell. The team
can't feel the same about an offsite, shared ballfield, Zaugg said. (The
Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 11, 2000)


COMTEX NEWS: Investor Sues for Damages from False News Release on Emulex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comtex News Network Inc. has been named a defendant in Pearson, et al v.
Internet Wire, Incorporated, et al, which was filed on August 30, 2000 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (CA
No. CV-00-B-2371-NE). The plaintiff is seeking actual damages of $120,000
in addition to punitive damages relating to his sale of Emulex Corporation
stock in response to an allegedly false news release issued or disseminated
by or on behalf of various defendants, including Comtex News.
The issue related to Emulex Corporation has been reported in an earlier
edition of the CAR.

The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct constituted negligence,
gross negligence, misrepresentation and/or fraud, and claims that the
defendants failed to take reasonably necessary precautions to prevent the
issuance of the press release. The plaintiff seeks to maintain the lawsuit
as a class action. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and believes the suit has no merit.


FEDERAL DEPOSIT: Black Workers May Get $14 Mil Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to a complaint by three workers, some 3,000 current and former black
employees at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. are close to receiving $14
million to settle allegations of racial discrimination.

If a tentative agreement is approved by a federal judge, the money would be
put in a fund and distributed to the employees in accordance with how long
they worked at the agency and how much salary they are estimated to have
lost from being unfairly denied promotions.

The individual amounts to be paid would be determined by a formula designed
by an outside expert in consultation with representatives of the black
employees.

The FDIC also has agreed to tighten its personnel policies and to set aside
an additional $1.5 million to pay the employees' withholding taxes and hire
a consultant to review its compliance with the new promotion rules.

Under the settlement, the 6,400-employee agency, which is responsible for
insuring deposits at the nation's banks and savings and loans, would
neither admit to nor deny the allegations of discrimination.

If approved, the settlement holds ''a great deal of promise to open up the
promotion process'' at the FDIC, Joseph Sellers, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys, said in a telephone interview.

He said the attorneys have been meeting with current and former black
employees in Washington and at the agency's regional offices around the
country to explain the settlement.

The employees' class-action complaint has been in mediation before an
impartial third party since February. The agreement in principle, reached
late last month, was first reported in Saturday's editions of The
Washington Post.

The three employees who filed the original complaint in 1992 to an FDIC
official alleged that the promotion process bred cronyism that valued
friendships and connections among employees more than their qualifications
and experience. They said white employees often were selected before a job
vacancy was announced and were allowed to fill openings temporarily until
they developed the skills needed for the new job.

The three employees were Chris J. Conanan, an FDIC attorney in the agency's
Office of General Counsel; Willitta Hawkins, who works in information
technology at the FDIC; and Marvin Gordan, a bank asset specialist who no
longer works there.

The $14 million the FDIC would pay is small compared with the record $508
million settlement last March of a 23-year-old lawsuit filed by 1,100 women
who said the now-defunct U.S. Information Agency and Voice of America
refused to hire them because of their gender.

Still, for the 1,000 or so black employees at the FDIC, the settlement is
''enormously significant,'' Sellers said.

He said he was hopeful the agreement would be submitted to a federal judge
in Washington later this year for final approval by next spring.

FDIC spokesman Phil Battey said the agency's ''senior management is pleased
with the progress of the mediation. We are hopeful that this mediation will
be concluded in a fair and equitable manner that benefits all employees.''
He declined further comment.

The plaintiffs' attorneys have set up a toll-free number for current and
former black FDIC employees: 1-888-800-8112. (AP Online, October 11, 2000)


FORD MOTOR: Calif. Judge Orders 1.7 Mil Cars and Trucks Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an unprecedented move, a California state judge ordered the recall of as
many as 1.7 million Ford cars and trucks Wednesday, accusing the automaker
of ''concealment of a dangerous condition.'' It was the first time a judge
in the United States had ordered a car recall. The order only applies to
vehicles sold California. Superior Court Judge Michael E. Ballachey said
Ford knew the vehicles were prone to stalling, especially when the engine
was hot, but failed to alert consumers.

The judge, based in Alameda County, had issued a tentative ruling in August
hinting he would order the recall and accusing Ford of knowing for nearly
two decades that the ignition modules were ''flawed from the outset.''
Ballachey gave Ford attorneys a chance to change his mind, but his ruling
Wednesday showed they had failed to sway him. ''This case was about
concealment of a dangerous condition,'' Ballachey read from the bench.

Government agencies normally order recalls, but Ballachey said state law
gives him the power to issue Wednesday's recall.

The automaker already is involved in the recall of 6.5 million Firestone
tires, which were standard equipment on some Ford trucks and sports utility
vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
investigating dozens of deaths possibly linked to the tires.

Wednesday's ruling, which applies only to vehicles sold in California, was
based on a class-action suit filed on behalf of 3.5 million current and
former Ford owners in California. The plaintiffs claim the vehicles stall
because wrongly placed ignition devices were exposed to excessive heat and
stress. Similar class action suits are pending in Alabama, Maryland,
Illinois, Tennessee and Washington.

Ballachey said Ford repeatedly deceived federal regulators by claiming
there were no problems with its ignition devices in vehicles in the 1983-95
model years. Ballachey wrote that Ford sold as many as 23 million vehicles
prone to stalling nationwide. Similar class action suits are pending in
Alabama, Maryland, Illinois, Tennessee and Washington. ''Ford has been
aware, since at least 1982, that installing its TFI ignition modules on the
distributors ... made them inordinately prone to failure due to exposure to
excessive heat and thermal stress,'' Ballachey's ruling said.

The suit challenged Ford's placement of the thick film ignition, known as a
TFI module, which regulates electric current to the spark plugs. In 300
models sold between 1983 and 1995, the module was mounted on the
distributor near the engine block, where it was exposed to high
temperatures.

Ford documents show the automaker was warned by an engineer that high
temperatures would cause the device to fail and stall the engine, confirmed
the problem in internal studies and could have moved the module to a cooler
spot for an extra $4 per vehicle.

Ford has denied its TFI ignition systems were flawed, and said Wednesday it
disagreed with the judge's ruling. ''The record in this case does not
demonstrate a safety problem,'' Ford attorney Richard Warmer said. ''The
recall is not justified by the evidence. These vehicles are safe.''

The Center for Auto Safety estimated that any California recall alone would
cost Ford at least $125 million.

Ford said it does not know how much a California recall would cost. Its
1996 internal documents projected that Ford would spend nearly $300 million
to fix the TFI problems nationwide for its 1994-1996 models.

After complaints from customers and dealers about stalling, Ford recalled
1.1 million 1984-85 vehicles in 1987 to repair their ignition devices.

Jeff Fazio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs who filed the class-action suit,
said: ''I think it's a great day for consumers.'' (AP Online, October 11,
2000)


GENDERM CORP: Class May Be Certified after Ruling on Director Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A successful lawsuit by GenDerm Corp. shareholders may now be certified as
a class action after the court decided that the directors breached their
duty to give investors enough informa tion to evaluate a merger offer, said
a Delaware state court judge. Turner v. Bernstein et al., No. 16190 (Del.
Ch., Aug. 11, 2000).

Despite the fact that both parties let the plaintiffs' class-certification
motion sit on the back burner for over two years, certifying the class now
hurts no one and is the most efficient means of distributing whatever
damages are awarded, Vice Chancellor Leo Strine ruled.

He also found that shareholders who signed the GenDerm board's form
affidavit two years ago disavowing the suit should not be barred from the
plaintiff class and that the proposed lead plaintiffs cannot represent
them.

At the time of GenDerm's merger into Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. in
December 1997, there were some 11.5 million outstanding shares of common
stock in GenDerm. The plaintiffs here owned some 110,000 shares of GenDerm,
which were cashed out at $3.64 a share. While the defendant GenDerm
directors collectively owned enough shares to guarantee the requisite
two-thirds majority for approval of the merger, the board mailed selected
shareholders a Consent Solicitation Package.

The plaintiffs asserted that they had never received the CSP, nor any other
information that would have allowed them to make an informed decision on
whether to accept the cash-out terms or elect appraisal.

In a previous opinion, Vice Chancellor Strine found that the GenDerm board
had provided the shareholders with "extremely cursory" information and only
two days before they had to decide what to do about the Medicis merger. In
response to the argument that appraisal is the appropriate remedy, the
court said in the absence of legislative guidance, a decision enabling
stockholders to hold directors accountable for duty-to-disclose breaches
serves an independent purpose not advanced by simple appraisal actions.

After that summary judgment decision in favor of the shareholders, they
renewed their motion for class certification. Defendants objected,
asserting that:

-- Having now decided on the merits that defendants breached their duty,
    the court cannot now certify a class;

-- Since a healthy percentage of the proposed class has already signed
    affidavits in which the shareholders disavowed the suit and its
    claims, the proposed plaintiffs are not typical of the class; and

-- The shareholders who signed those affidavits cannot now reverse their
    position and join the class action.

As to the first point, Vice Chancellor Strine said nothing in Delaware law
prevents him from certifying a timely filed class after -- rather than
before -- a ruling on the merits. No one will be harmed and the class will
be best served by distributing any money damages based on number of shares
held, since there is no reliance issue here. Without a class action, this
type of "quasi-appraisal" action would degenerate into a chaos of
individual suits, the court explained.

"What could be more maddening for corporate defendants than to be locked
into a quasi-appraisal award but possibly subject to having to pay a larger
amount if a subsequent plaintiff who is identically situated seeks and
obtains a higher award," the vice chancellor wrote.

Besides, he noted, if the defendants -- or the plaintiffs -- had wanted an
earlier determination of the class issue they could have pressed the matter
in briefing and memoranda.

In response to the last point, the court said the mere fact that some
members of the proposed class may not want to hold the defendants
accountable for breaches of fiduciary duty does not create a conflict that
bars class certification. Besides, Vice Chancellor Strine added, the record
provides no basis to conclude that the directors who solicted the
affidavits presented a balanced rendition of the case and the merits of the
opposing positions.

The remaining matter is to identify the class members and send them notice,
the court said.

Ronald A. Brown Jr. of Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee in
Wilmington, Del., represents the plaintiffs.

Gregory A. Varallo and Russell C. Silberglied of Richards, Layton & Finger
in Wilmington, and Michael Poulos and Lucinda Bach of Piper Marbury Rudnick
& Wolfe in Chicago represent defendants. (Corporate Officers and Directors
Liability Litigation Reporter, September 11, 2000)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Industry Asks State-Owned Firms to Share
------------------------------------------------------------------
With companies' donations to a compensation fund for victims of Nazi labor
slowing to a trickle, German industry demanded Wednesday that money from
state-owned firms count for its half of the 10 billion mark (dlrs 4.5
billion) fund instead of the government's half.

German companies' failure to come up with its share anytime soon will not
delay payments to survivors, spokesman Wolfgang Gibowski said. More than 1
million people, mostly non-Jews from eastern Europe, stand to receive
compensation for being used as slave and forced labor to keep Nazi industry
running during World War II.

But as the collection drags on with industry's total stuck at about 3.2
billion marks (dlrs 1.3 billion) for months, Gibowski said the effort
starts to lose legitimacy and causes some companies to wonder why they paid
so much earlier than others.

That difference could be quickly made up, Gibowski argued, if the state-run
post, telecommunications and train monopolies who are now contributing an
amount estimated at as much as 500 million marks (dlrs 223 million) to
government's half of the fund instead put their money for the industry
half. Gibowski justified the demand saying that the three companies were
recently transformed into for-profit corporations, some of which have sold
public shares.

''We need the whole German economy, and not parts of it,'' Gibowski said.

Around 4,200 firms have already contributed to the fund, but at the rate of
around 5 million marks to 10 million marks (dlrs 2.2 million to 4.5
million) coming in a week, it will take a year or more to collect the rest,
Gibowski said.

The companies behind the fund have launched phone campaigns and public
relations offensives to get more firms to join, but Gibowski said there
simply aren't any more big companies to quickly close the money gap.

Lawmakers and government officials strongly rejected having Deutsche Post,
Telekom and Bahn switch their contribution to the industry half saying that
would be in violation of the law creating the fund.

''I am not eager to change the law and the law is in force,'' said Volker
Beck, a parliament member of the Greens party who is on the Nazi labor
fund's board of trustees said.

''There will be no change,'' chief government spokesman Uwe-Karsten Heye
said. ''We expect industry to increase its efforts.''

If the companies are having problems raising the money, then Beck said it
was up to the 16 founding firms which include such corporate heavyweights
as DaimlerChrysler, Deutsche Bank and Bayer to simply up their stake,
possibly to more than 100 million marks (dlrs 44.6 million) each.

''It's a lot of money, but it's something that they really can afford if
they have to,'' Beck said.

Beck also pointed out that with the tax breaks the companies are getting
for the donations, taxpayers are already footing 3/4 of the fund's actual
cost.

Government and industry are waiting for the class-action lawsuits in the
United States which had prompted the creation of the fund last year to be
dismissed before money flows to victims. Payments had originally been
slated to begin by the end of this year, although officials have said it
will likely be delayed to 2001. (AP Worldstream, October 11, 2000)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Germans Industry Admits Failure in Raising Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------
German industry has accepted that efforts to raise DM5bn (Dollars 2.2bn)
for a foundation to compensate Nazi-era forced and slave labourers have
failed. "Business stands by its undertaking. But without public sector
companies, it can't be done in the circumstances," admitted Wolfgang
Gibowski, spokesman for the foundation.

With some big companies and swathes of smaller and middle sized groups yet
to commit themselves, the fund's organisers have sought contributions from
public or partially privatised groups.

However, the government has argued the DM400m pledged by German railways,
the post office and Deutsche Telekom forms part of the DM5bn being paid
directly by the state.

German companies have so far pledged DM3.2bn towards the DM5bn they
promised. A further DM5bn is coming from the government under the DM10bn
deal hammered out in July between business, government officials, victims'
lawyers and eight countries, including the US.

Although the number of German groups offering to contribute has risen from
about 3,000 to 4,170 in the past three months, pledges to the fund are
running at just DM2m a day, making the DM5bn target unattainable.

The admission that the DM5bn total might not be reached came as lawyers for
German companies filed submissions to dismiss 39 class actions against
leading manufacturers at a federal court in New Jersey.

The US court ruling, one of three cases bundling a total of 55 class
actions, is expected next month.

The keenly awaited ruling for dismissal should set a landmark in giving
German industry the protection from legal action it has sought as a central
condition for the slave labour settlement. (Financial Times (London),
October 11, 2000)


INTERSPEED, INC:  Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------Shareholders
filed a federal class-action lawsuit on Oct 10 charging Interspeed, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ISPD) with securities fraud, Berman DeValerio & Pease LLP
(www.bermanesq.com) said.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Interspeed common
stock between February 3, 2000 and October 6, 2000 (the "Class Period").
Berman DeValerio & Pease has represented defrauded investors in class
actions for nearly two decades.

The complaint charges that Interspeed issued materially false and
misleading statements concerning its business, financial condition and
earnings that inflated its stock price during the Class Period.
Specifically, the lawsuit says Interspeed improperly recorded revenue
during the first three quarters of On October 6, the company announced it
"anticipates that its unaudited results for the interim periods will be
restated." In the same announcement, the company said its chief executive
officer, Stephen Ide, had resigned, and that two other high-level employees
had been fired. In the wake of the announcement, Interspeed's stock price
fell to as low as $1 from a high of $37 during the Class Period.

Contact: Jennifer L. Finger, Esq. of Berman DeValerio & Pease, 800-516-
9926, bdplaw@bermanesq.com


MOBIL OIL: Tells Aust Senate No Business Collapsed Because of Dirty Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contaminated aviation fuel crisis had not permanently ruined any
aircraft, Mobil told a Senate committee.

Of 3,100 piston-engined aircraft grounded for several weeks in January and
February, all but 28, mostly antique planes needing rare parts, were back
in the air.

"We are aware of no aircraft that will not fly again due to the impact of
the avgas incident," ExxonMobil Aviation Asia-Pacific aviation manager Kim
MacMillan told the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.

She said Mobil had paid out $17.6 million in compensation to 4,175
claimants, with another 262 claims pending and 23 rejected.

The four categories of people eligible for reimbursement and hardship
payments were aircraft owners and operators, employees and contractors,
flight operation service providers, and others who earn their income
directly from aircraft.

Others, such as tourist operators and taxi companies on islands only
accessible by aircraft, were ineligible.

Ms MacMillan said Mobil was now facing class actions in the Federal Court
and the Victorian Supreme Court and was not admitting legal liability for
the crisis.

She said although community claims were not legally recognised, Mobil
recognised Flinders Island in Bass Strait was a special case and was in
discussions with the mayor about a funding package for the island.

Several individuals on Flinders Island have been compensated under the main
compensation program. Three other businesses and three visitors to the
island have had claims rejected.

Those six claims totalled $38,000.

Asked whether any Flinders Island firms had folded because of the tainted
avgas, ExxonMobil Asia-Pacific regional planning executive Malcolm Garrow
said none had.

"We are not aware of any businesses that have gone bust (Australia-wide)
... as a result of the avgas incident in January," he said.

The Senate committee held two hearings with Mobil executives in January,
with a follow-up on October 11. (AAP Newsfeed, October 11, 2000)


QWEST: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit over Installation Delays in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest agreed to settle 1996 class-action lawsuit over installation delays
in Colo. for $36 million. Settlement, which must be approved by Colo. Dist.
Court, Larimer County, could involve up to 244,000 current and former
customers.

Under sliding-scale compensation formula that's part of settlement,
residential customer who waited up to 4 days for 2nd line would get $3.79
credit or payment, while business that waited more than 5 months for
primary line would get $1,900. Eight named plaintiffs in suit each would
receive $25,000 cash settlement. Qwest also must pay $7.5 million for
plaintiffs' legal fees in addition to $36 million customer compensation.
Settlement doesn't require Qwest to admit guilt.

Suit was filed against U S West, but Qwest inherited litigation when it
purchased U S West in June. Class period runs from Jan. 1993 to date court
approves settlement. Plaintiffs alleged US West knowingly lied to customers
about when their phone service would be installed, while diverting local
service resources to other business ventures. If court approves deal,
compensation would be paid early in 2002. (Communications Daily, October
11, 2000)


VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: 6 Chemical Firms to Pay Extra $400 Mil
------------------------------------------------------------
Six Japanese and European chemical firms have agreed to pay an additional
$400 million to settle class action suits in the United States over the
companies' conspiracy to fix the prices of vitamins, Takeda Chemical
Industries Ltd., one of the six companies, said Wednesday.

Of the $400 million, approximately $46 million will be paid by three
Japanese firms. Takeda Chemical will pay $27.3 million, Eisai Co. $11.86
million and Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. $6.8 million.

The three companies said they would post an extraordinary loss for the
first half of fiscal 2000 as a result of the payment. The three other
companies are Roche Holding Ltd. of Switzerland, BASF AG of Germany and
Aventis SA of France. The payment is meant to compensate indirect
purchasers of certain vitamin products, including wholesalers, distributors
and end-users, Takeda Chemical said. The six companies have already paid
$1.05 billion to U.S. beverage makers to settle their claims and $860
million in criminal fines to the U.S. Justice Department.

The companies have admitted conspiring to raise and fix prices and allocate
market shares for certain vitamins sold in the U.S. during the 1990s.
(Japan Economic Newswire, October 11, 2000)


VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: BASF to Share $82M in $255 Mil Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Germman chemicals and pharmaceuticals maker BASF said on Wednesday that
it had agreed to pay about 82 million dollars (94 million euros) in
settlement of allegations that it had conspired with other companies to fix
vitamin prices in the US.

BASF and five other vitamin makers -- Roche of Switzerland, Aventis of
France, and Takeda, Eisai and Daiichi of Japan -- had agreed to pay a total
255 million dollars in compensation in order to prevent class-action suits
by consumers, companies and state organisations in the US, the German
company said in a statement. BASF's share would be about 82 million
dollars, it added. (Agence France Presse, October 11, 2000)


VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: Mankers Agree to Pay Washington State  $10.6 Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Six foreign vitamin manufacturers have agreed to pay millions, including $
10.6 million in Washington state, to settle claims that they conspired to
fix prices.

Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire and other attorneys general
around the nation announced the settlements Tuesday.

Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle said the six companies have agreed to
pay $335 million to 22 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Gregoire's office pegged the total at about $245 million, saying some
states have not yet signed the agreements.

The companies, which produce vitamin pills and supplements for fortified
foods and agricultural feed, are accused of meeting in secret to fix prices
from 1989 to 1998.

It would be too difficult to provide small rebates to millions of
consumers, so Washington state's share of the settlement provides $6.1
million to be distributed as grants for nutritional consumer programs or
science, Gregoire said.

The settlement also provides $3.1 million for Washington businesses -
mostly food manufacturers and agricultural companies - that can provide
receipts showing they bought vitamins. Government agencies that paid higher
prices because of the conspiracies will get $1.4 million, she said.

The companies taking part in the settlement are: F. Hoffmann-La Roche of
Switzerland; BASF of Germany; Aventis of France; and Japanese companies
Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd., Eisai Co. and Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co.

"We have cooperated fully with the authorities since this situation came to
light and we've taken steps to see that this is not repeated in the
future," said Martin Hirsch, a Hoffmann-La Roche spokesman.

Last year, vitamin manufacturers agreed to pay $1.1 billion to businesses
in a class-action settlement. In addition, Hoffman-La Roche and BASF were
ordered to pay $725 million in criminal fines for colluding to divide up
markets and set wholesale prices.

Four former executives of BASF and Hoffman-La Roche agreed earlier this
year to plead guilty, pay fines and serve time in U.S. prisons for scheming
to fix vitamin prices.

The U.S. government said the conspiracy affected the vitamins most commonly
used as nutritional supplements or to enrich human food and animal feed -
vitamins A, B2, B5, C, E and beta carotene.

Washington businesses interested in filing claims, or programs interested
in applying for grants, should contact Virginia Smith of the attorney
general's consumer protection division in Seattle at (206) 464-7744. (The
Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 11, 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  * * *