CAR_Public/001031.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, October 31, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 212

                             Headlines

ALLSCRIPT: Mark McNair Investigates on Possible Securities Law Violation
CHECKERS DRIVE: Canít Predict Outcome of 1994 Lawsuits against Rallyís
CHECKERS DRIVE: Gets Open Extension to Respond to Securities Suit in DE
CLARUS CORP: Hoffman & Edelson Files Securities Suit in Georgia
CLARUS CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in Georgia

COCA-COLA COMPANY: Analysts Downplay Impact of Securities Suit
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in Georgia
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Georgia
E TRADE: Charges over Business Practices Are at Early Stage
GOODYEAR TIRE: 4th Cir Grants Workers Reconsideration on Disease Case

GOODYEAR TIRE: CO Lawsuit over Heatway Systems Not Granted Class Status
HARTLAND HIGH-YIELD: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in WI
HMOs: JPMDL To Decide Whether To Have Separate Dockets For Providers
HMOs: Parallel CT Suits Filed Against CIGNA, Oxford, Physicians Health
PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL: FL Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Suit

SONIC INNOVATIONS: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Lawsuit in Utah
SONIC INNOVATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Utah
UNITED INSURANCE: Suits over Discriminatory Rates Stayed for Discussions
UNITED STATES: Back Pay Court Approves Settlement in COLA Suit
WESTELL INDUSTRIES: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Suit in Illinois

Y2K LITIGATION: Sage Settles Action Over MAS 90 Software For Up To $8.5M

                             *********

ALLSCRIPT: Mark McNair Investigates on Possible Securities Law Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Mark McNair announces that it has commenced an
investigation of Allscripts (NASDAQ:MDRX) for possible violations of the
civil enforcement provisions of the federal securities laws.

Any investors of Allscripts that have information that would be useful to
this inquiry or are interested in learning about their legal rights may
contact the Law Offices of Mark McNair at 1819 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite
550 or wmmcnair@justice4investors.com or contact Mark McNair at
877/511-4717.

Contact: Law Offices of Mark McNair Mark McNair, Esq., 877/511-4717KEYWORD;
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


CHECKERS DRIVE: Canít Predict Outcome of 1994 Lawsuits against Rallyís
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Mittman Et Al. V. Rally's Hamburgers, Inc., Et Al. (Case NO.
C-94-0039-L-CS).

According to the report filed by Checkers Drive in Restaurants with the
SEC, in January and February 1994, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed, purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of Rally's, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville
division, against Rally's, Burt Sugarman and GIANT GROUP, LTD. ("GIANT")
and certain of Rally's former officers and directors and its auditors.

The cases were subsequently consolidated under the case name Jonathan
Mittman et al vs. Rally's Hamburgers, Inc., et al, case number C-94-0039-L
(CS). The complaints allege defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, among other claims, by issuing inaccurate public statements about
Rally's in order to arbitrarily inflate the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On April 15, 1994, Rally's filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to
strike. On April 5, 1995, the Court struck certain provisions of the
complaint but otherwise denied Rally's motion to dismiss. In addition, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification; the plaintiffs
renewed this motion, and despite opposition by the defendants, the Court
granted such motion for class certification on April 16, 1996, certifying a
class from July 20, 1992 to September 29, 1993.

In October 1995, the plaintiffs filed a motion to disqualify Christensen,
Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP ("Christensen, Miller")
as counsel for defendants based on a purported conflict of interest
allegedly arising from the representation of multiple defendants as well as
Ms. Glaser's position as both a former director of Rally's and a partner in
Christensen, Miller. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion, and the
motion to disqualify Christensen, Miller was denied.

A settlement conference occurred on December 7, 1998, but was unsuccessful.
Fact discovery was completed in August 1999. Expert discovery was completed
in July 2000. Motions for Summary Judgment have been filed by the parties.
Management is unable to predict the outcome of this matter at the present
time or whether or not certain available insurance coverage's will apply.
The defendants deny all wrongdoing and intend to defend themselves
vigorously in this matter.


CHECKERS DRIVE: Gets Open Extension to Respond to Securities Suit in DE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
First Albany Corp., As Custodian For The Benefit Of Nathan Suckman V.
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. Et Al. Case No. 16667.

This putative class action was filed on September 29, 1998, in the Delaware
Chancery Court in and for New Castle County, Delaware by First Albany
Corp., as custodian for the benefit of Nathan Suckman, an alleged
stockholder of 500 shares of the Company's common stock. The complaint
names the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors as defendants including William P. Foley, II, James J. Gillespie,
Harvey Fattig, Joseph N. Stein, Richard A. Peabody, James T. Holder, Terry
N. Christensen, Frederick E. Fisher, Clarence V. McKee, Burt Sugarman, C.
Thomas Thompson and Peter C. O'Hara. The Complaint also names Rally's and
GIANT as defendants.

The complaint arises out of the proposed merger announced on September 28,
1998 between the Company, Rally's and GIANT (the "Proposed Merger") and
alleges generally, that certain of the defendants engaged in an unlawful
scheme and plan to permit Rally's to acquire the public shares of the
Company's stock in a "going-private" transaction for grossly inadequate
consideration and in breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff allegedly initiated the Complaint on behalf of all
stockholders of the Company as of September 28, 1998, and seeks inter alia,
certain declaratory and injunctive relief against the consummation of the
Proposed merger, or in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated,
recision of the Proposed Merger and costs and disbursements incurred in
connection with bringing the action, including attorney's fees, and such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

In view of a decision by the Company, GIANT and Rally's not to implement
the transaction that had been announced on September 28, 1998, plaintiffs
have agreed to provide the Company and all other defendants with an open
extension of time to respond to the complaint. Although, plaintiffs
indicated that they would likely file an amended complaint in the event of
the consummation of a merger between the Company and Rally's, no such
amendment has been filed to date. The Company believes the lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously should plaintiffs seek to
renew the lawsuit.

                            Steinberg Action

David J. Steinberg And Chaile B. Steinberg, Individually And On Behalf Of
Those Similarly Situated V. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., Et Al.
Case No. 16680.

This putative class action was filed on October 2, 1998, in the Delaware
Chancery Court in and for New Castle County, Delaware by David J. Steinberg
and Chaile B. Steinberg, alleged stockholders of an unspecified number of
shares of the Company's common stock. The complaint names the Company and
certain of its current officers and directors as defendants including
William P. Foley, II, James J. Gillespie, Harvey Fattig, Joseph N. Stein,
Richard A. Peabody, James T. Holder, Terry N. Christensen, Frederick E.
Fisher, Clarence V. McKee Burt Sugarman, C. Thomas Thompson and Peter C.
O'Hara.

The Complaint also names Rally's and GIANT as defendants. As with the FIRST
ALBANY complaint described above, this complaint arises out of the proposed
merger announced on September 28, 1998 between the Company, Rally's and
GIANT (the "Proposed Merger") and alleges generally, that certain of the
defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme and plan to permit Rally's to
acquire the public shares of the Company's common stock in a
"going-private" transaction for grossly inadequate consideration and in
breach of the defendant's fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs allegedly initiated the Complaint on behalf of all
stockholders of the Company as of September 28, 1998, and seeks INTER ALIA,
certain declaratory and injunctive relief against the consummation of the
Proposed merger, or in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated,
recision of the Proposed Merger and costs and disbursements incurred in
connection with bringing the action, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

For the reasons stated above in the description of the First Albany action,
plaintiffs have agreed to provide the Company and all other defendants with
an open extension of time to respond to the complaint. Although, plaintiffs
indicated that they would likely file an amended complaint in the event of
the consummation of a merger between the Company and Rally's, no such
amendment has been filed to date. The Company believes the lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


CLARUS CORP: Hoffman & Edelson Files Securities Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Hoffman & Edelson, LLC (877/537-6532 toll free) announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Clarus Corp. (Nasdaq:CLRS) from January 31, 2000
through October 25, 2000.

Plaintiff alleges that Clarus Corp. and certain of its directors and
officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements. Plaintiff contends that Clarus Corp. did not
disclose that its third quarter results would not meet expectations even
though it knew that they would not.

That, coupled with insider trading and the disclosure of missed earning's
estimates on October 25, 2000, caused shareholders to lose 44% value on
that date when shares plunged from $19.8906 to $11.0625.

Contact: HOFFMAN & EDELSON, LLC Marc H. Edelson, Esq. or Jerold B. Hoffman,
Esq. 877/537-6532 (toll free), fax 215/230-8735 Hofedlaw@aol.com


CLARUS CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Clarus Corporation (NASDAQ: CLRS) between January 31, 2000
and October 25, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Clarus and certain officers and directors with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the quality of the
Company's receivables and accounting practices. As a result, Clarus's stock
price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. The complaint
further alleges that certain Company insiders took advantage of this
artificial inflation and sold millions of dollars worth of their own
personal holdings of Clarus stock.

Contact: Chitwood & Harley, Atlanta Martin D. Chitwood Lori A. Smith (888)
873-3999/(404) 873-3900 las@classlaw.com


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Analysts Downplay Impact of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beverage analysts said Sunday that investors are likely to take the latest
legal assault on Coca-Cola in stride.

Late Friday, news broke that a stockholder lawsuit seeking class-action
status was filed against Coke, alleging that it misled investors and
artificially inflated its stock price.

"I don't foresee any impact on Wall Street right now," said Sanford
Bernstein analyst Bill Pecoriello, who currently has a buy rating on the
stock. "I think it will be something that is watched in the background."

Morgan Stanley Dean Witter analyst Andrew Conway agreed.

"It is unlikely that this lawsuit will have any long-term effect on Coke's
stock," said Conway, who has a neutral rating on the company. "However, the
lawsuit deals with the age-old question of implied fair dealing between
bottlers and the concentrate company regarding appropriate levels of
inventory held by bottlers."

The suit, filed in Atlanta federal court, alleges that Coke and top
executives, including former Chairman M. Douglas Ivester, violated
securities regulations by secretly forcing major bottlers to purchase $ 300
million to $ 400 million in unnecessary amounts of beverage concentrate
last year. That allegedly helped the company meet revenue and earnings
forecasts for last year's third quarter and propelled the stock in the
fourth quarter, the suit said.

But the stock fell sharply and investors suffered substantially after the
company announced in January that financial results for 2000 would be lower
than originally forecast because bottlers had too much inventory, the suit
said.

It also alleged that the company refused to properly account for hundreds
of millions of dollars of impaired assets from its operations in Russia and
Japan.

"These are baseless, false and even ridiculous allegations," Coca-Cola
spokesman Rob Baskin said Sunday. "We scrupulously adhere to all securities
rules and regulations. We will vigorously defend ourselves against these
baseless charges."

The suit does not come at a good time for Coke. "The timing is not ideal
because (Chairman) Doug Daft has been working feverishly to build stronger
relationships with regulators around the world," Conway said. "At the same
time, he's been hoping to settle the discrimination suit against the
company, and now this suit emerges."

John Sicher, editor and publisher of Beverage Digest, was skeptical of the
shareholder suit. "It's much harder to win a stockholder suit than to bring
one," Sicher said. "Over the last year, Coke has been very straightforward
with its stockholders and the investment community."

The named plaintiff in the suit, Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of
Philadelphia, is seeking to represent all investors who purchased Coke
stock between Oct. 21, 1999, and March 6, 2000.

The suit was filed by the Atlanta law firm Chitwood & Harley and the San
Diego firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach. (The Atlanta Journal and
Constitution, October 30, 2000)


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased the
stock of the Coca-Cola Company ("Coke" or the "Company") (NYSE: KO) between
October 21, 1999 and March 6, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Coke and Douglas Ivester, Jack Stahl, and James
Chestnut (who were high-ranking officers at the Company during the relevant
time period) with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleges that Defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements that
concealed the fact that the Company had (1) forced key Coke bottlers to
purchase hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unwanted, unnecessary,
and excessive amounts of Coke beverage concentrate, and (2) refused to
properly account for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impaired
assets from its operations in Russia and Japan. As a result, Coke's stock
price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

Contact: Chitwood & Harley Martin D. Chitwood David A. Bain (888)
873-3999/(404) 873-3900 dab@classlaw.com


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/coke/)announced on October 27 that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of The Coca-Cola
Company ("Coke") (NYSE:KO) common stock during the period between October
21, 1999 and March 6, 2000 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Coke and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for issuing a series of
false and misleading statements between October 21, 1999 and March 6, 2000.
Specifically, Coke reported misleading financial results, falsely presented
its flat gallonage shipments of concentrate to bottlers during 1999 as a
positive development, represented that the improving financial condition of
those bottlers had set the stage for substantial revenue growth by Coke as
consumer demand for its products had picked up in late 99 and early 00, and
forecast 4thQ 99 EPS of $.30-$.31, 99 EPS of $1.29-$1.31, 00 EPS
of$1.50-$1.60 and 01 EPS of $ 75+. As a result of Coke's statements, Coke's
stock recovered sharply from its early 10/99 low of $47-5/16 to as high as
$69 on 12/3/99, a huge increase in Coke's stock price in about 90 days,
which restored over $52 billion in Coke stockholder market capitalization.
Then, on 3/7/00, Bloomberg reported that, based on the revelations of the
past several weeks and continuing conversations with Coke executives,
analysts had concluded that Coke would not be able to achieve a return to
its historic 8+% and 15%-20% revenue and EPS growth at any time in the
foreseeable future. Coke's stock fell to just $44-13/16 on 3/7/00, its
lowest price in years.

Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP William Lerach,
800/449-4900 wsl@mwbhl.com


E TRADE: Charges over Business Practices Are at Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
E Trade Group Inc. is a defendant in several putative class action filings.
The matters alleged by the plaintiffs include:

* False and deceptive advertising and other communications regarding the
   Company's commission rates and ability to timely execute and confirm
   online transactions;

* Damages arising from alleged problems in accessing brokerage accounts
   and placing orders;

* Damages arising from system interruptions; and

* Unfair business practices regarding the extent to which initial public
   offering shares are made available to the Company's customers.

These proceedings are at early stages, and the Company is unable to predict
their ultimate outcome; however, the Company believes that all of these
claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. An
unfavorable outcome in any of these matters, if they are not covered by
insurance, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even if the
ultimate outcomes are resolved in favor of the Company, the defense of such
litigation could entail considerable cost and the diversion of efforts of
management, either of which could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operation.


GOODYEAR TIRE: 4th Cir Grants Workers Reconsideration on Disease Case
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is the defendant in a series of 66 civil actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by
certain former employees of a former subsidiary of the Company relating the
development of lung disease, cancer and other diseases alleged to be the
result of exposure to allegedly toxic substances while working at a tire
plant of the subsidiary located in Maryland, which plant was closed in
1987.

On January 28, 1999, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgement on causation and issued a Final Judgement Order
dismissing each case with prejudice and assessing costs to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs appealed the Final Judgement Order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and, on July 27, 2000, the Court of
Appeals vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the cases
for further proceedings, instructing the District Court to reconsider
whether the plaintiffs are entitled to limited additional discovery.


GOODYEAR TIRE: CO Lawsuit over Heatway Systems Not Granted Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a related class action, Anderson, et al. v. Goodyear, et. al., filed in
November of 1988 in District Court of Eagle County, Colorado, against the
Company and Heatway on behalf of a putative class of real property owners
in Colorado on whose property heating systems using Entran 2 hose have been
installed and who have suffered or may suffer damage to their property due
to the alleged defective nature of the Heatway systems and/or Entran 2
hose, the court declined to certify the class in July of 2000.


HARTLAND HIGH-YIELD: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in WI
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit was filed on October 27, 2000, on behalf of purchasers
of shares of the Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund ("HRHYX") and the
Heartland Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund ("HRSDX") between May 1,
1999 and October 16, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss'
website at: http://www.milberg.com/heartland/

The action, numbered 00C1388, is pending in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, located at 517 E. Wisconsin Ave.,
Milwaukee, WI 53202, against defendants Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond
Fund, the Heartland Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund, Heartland
Advisers, Inc. and Thomas J. Conlin. The Honorable William E. Callahan is
the Judge presiding over the case. The complaint alleges that defendants
violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing
materially false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses.
As alleged in the Complaint, defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Funds' net asset value ("NAV") and
performance. These statements were materially false and misleading because
(1) the NAV of the Funds was materially overstated as the Funds had
overvalued a material portion of their holdings of certain municipal bonds;
(2) the Fund's performance was materially overstated as those figures were
based on the NAV of the respective funds, which figures were materially
overstated because the Funds' had materially overstated the Funds' NAV; and
(3) the risk of investing in the Funds was materially understated as the
Funds had failed to disclose the true risk attendant to their respective
portfolio securities. Accordingly, defendants' statements about the risks
associated with investing in the Funds were not meaningful because they
failed to advise investors that the Funds were materially overstating their
NAV. On October 16, 2000, Heartland Advisors shocked investors by
announcing that it was drastically writing down the net asset value ("NAV")
of the Funds. In particular, the High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund's NAV was
reduced from $8.01 per share to $2.45 per share, a decline of 70%, and the
High-Yield Short Duration Municipal Fund's NAV from $8.70 per share to
$4.87 per share, a decline of approximately 44%.

Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP Steven G. Schulman or
Samuel H. Rudman 800/320-5081 HeartlandCase@milbergNY.com


HMOs: JPMDL To Decide Whether To Have Separate Dockets For Providers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Sept. 22 heard oral
arguments on whether to establish individual MDL dockets for each HMO
involved in nationwide class action lawsuits or to consolidate all the
actions with the docket already established in Florida for the Humana Inc.
lawsuits (In re Aetna, Inc. Managed Care Litigation, No. MDL 1367, JPMDL).

(Aetna briefs available. Document # 31-000929-013. 24 pages. O'Brien/Albert
briefs available. Document # 31-000929-014. 17 pages.)

The panel said it would take a little longer than usual to determine the
individual MDL's fates, a defense source told Mealey Publications. Those
MDLs include dockets for actions filed against Aetna, CIGNA and Prudential
by HMO subscribers and health care providers. The source said the panel
normally takes about two to three weeks to make a decision and he expects
the panel to take four to six for this action.

                      Preferred Forums

By and large, the plaintiff firms would like all the HMO cases transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami
for consolidation with In re: Humana Inc., Managed Care Litigation (No. MDL
1334), the defense source said. However, one plaintiff firm, Milberg Weiss,
Bershad, Hynes & Lerach in New York, would like to see its cases against
Aetna transferred to the District of Connecticut, where the firm has at
least two class actions pending - O'Brien v. Aetna and Albert v. CIGNA (See
stories, Pages 5 & 6).

A plaintiff source told Mealey's that it could be one of the only times
defense and plaintiff counsel agree, although the two sides are disagreeing
on the final destination of the Aetna MDL docket. While Milberg Weiss
plaintiffs would like a forum in Connecticut, Aetna would like to see its
cases consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the home of its
corporate headquarters for its health care insurance division and the court
where the first RICO action against it was filed (Maio v. Aetna, No.
99-1854, 3rd Cir.; See 8/25/00, Page 4). The Maio case has since been
dismissed and the Third Circuit has upheld the decision. A source close to
the case has said the Maio plaintiffs are seriously considering an appeal
to the U.S. Supreme Court.

                      Separate Dockets

The defense source said that the panel may in fact be leaning towards
establishing different MDL dockets for individual companies, explaining
that many of the panel judges made comments with the phrases "massive MDL,"
and "don't want to saddle one judge with this," during questioning. The
judges, according to the source, suggested that the class size for one MDL
docket could total more than 30 million subscribers, with one attorney
suggesting a total class size of approximately 150 million.

Also, a panel judge said 80 percent of the health care providers in the
country may be involved as part of a massive MDL. Health care providers
have filed several class actions against various HMOs. Those actions are
currently pending as part of the Humana MDL docket in Miami.

The defense source said that recently, the panel has had a record of
splitting massive class actions among several district court judges.

Aetna is represented by John J. Swenson and Richard J. Doren of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles and Miguel A. Estrada in the firm's
Washington, D.C., office.

The O'Brien and Albert plaintiffs are represented by Edith Kallas, Melvyn
I. Weiss, Charles S. Hellman and Patrick J. Sheehan of Milberg Weiss in New
York, James E. Hartley and Gary B. O'Connor of Drubner Hartley O'Connor &
Mengacci in Waterbury, Conn., and David R. Scott and James E. Miller of
Scott & Scott in Colchester, Conn.

Also representing O'Brien and Albert are Stanley M. Grossman, D. Brian
Hufford and Robert J. Axelrod of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross in
New York, Curtis V. Trinko in New York, Jeffrey L. Kodroff of Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff in Philadelphia and Harvey Rosenfield of the Foundation
for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, Calif. (Mealey's Managed
Care Liability Report, September 29, 2000)


HMOs: Parallel CT Suits Filed Against CIGNA, Oxford, Physicians Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in a Connecticut federal court Sept. 7 - a
parallel action to one filed by the state attorney general - against
several managed care organizations, including CIGNA, MedSpan Health
Options, Oxford Health Plans, Physicians Health and WellCare Management,
challenging alleged wrongful disclosure of information regarding health
care coverage (Stephen C. Albert, et al. v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut
Inc., et al., No. 3:00-CV-1717, D. Conn.).

The action was filed the same day Connecticut Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal filed his class action suit for the state on behalf of its
citizens (See previous story). A group of plaintiffs, led by Stephen C.
Albert, are members of the HMO or point of service plans offered by the
defendant insurers.

                        ERISA Violations Alleged

Albert alleges that the insurers have violated ERISA and injured enrollees
by engaging in the following undisclosed internal practices:

Using inappropriate and arbitrary coverage guidelines as the basis of
coverage denials.

Using prescription drug formularies which obstruct enrollee access to
medically necessary prescription drugs and failing to give enrollees the
denial notices, including notice of the right to appeal.

Failing to make timely payments to providers, thus threatening enrollees
with the loss of necessary care.

Failing to respond to enrollee written and telephonic communications in a
manner which is speedy, coherent and fair.

Failing to disclose to enrollees essential information about the health
care plans upon which the enrollees rely, including the true nature of the
coverage provided and the steps necessary to submit claims and appeal
denials of coverage.

The class could consist of at least 650,000 Connecticut residents, the
complaint says.

                                Claims

Albert makes several claims, including breach of fiduciary duty under
ERISA, breach of ERISA disclosure obligations and breach of ERISA notice
obligations. Albert seeks class action status, declaratory relief,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an order calling for
restitution of the fair value of the premiums paid and costs of the action,
including attorneys' fees.

The action was filed by James E. Hartley and Gary B. O'Connor of Drubner,
Hartley, O'Connor & Mengacci in Waterbury, Conn. Also representing Albert
are Melvyn I. Weiss, Edith M. Kallas, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Charles S.
Hellman and Patrick J. Sheehan of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach in
New York; David R. Scott and James E. Miller of Scott & Scott in
Colchester, Conn.; Staley M. Grossman and D. Brian Hufford of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross in New York; Curtis V. Trinko of the Law
Office of Curtis V. Trinko in New York; and Jeffrey L. Kodroff of Spector
Roseman & Kodroff in Philadelphia. (Mealey's Managed Care Liability Report,
September 29, 2000)


PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL: FL Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 23, 1999, a lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the
Middle District of Florida as a purported class action initiated by George
Taylor, a former Phoenix employee. Initially, Phoenix and its chief
executive officer were named as defendants. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that Phoenix and its chief executive officer improperly
recognized revenues, overstated revenues and failed to disclose that our
revenues were allegedly in decline, all of which allegedly caused the
companyís stock price to be higher than it otherwise would have been during
the class period. The lawsuit alleges that these purported actions violate
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On May 5, 2000, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which, among
other things, (1) adds four additional investors as named plaintiffs and
proposed class representatives; (2) expands the purported class period to
the period from May 5, 1997 to April 15, 1999; and (3) adds Phoenix's
president as an additional named defendant.

Phoenix and the other two defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, which were
denied by the Court without opinion in August 2000. The parties are
beginning to conduct discovery. Phoenix's insurance carriers have denied
coverage for the claims in this lawsuit. Phoenix is vigorously defending
this case.


SONIC INNOVATIONS: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Lawsuit in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley & Geller, LLP announced on October 27 that it has
filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District
of Utah on behalf of all individuals and institutional investors that
purchased the securities of Sonic Innovations, Inc. (Nasdaq:SNCI) between
May 2, 2000 and Oct. 24, 2000,inclusive (the "Class Period"), including
those who purchased shares pursuant to the May 2, 2000 Initial Public
Offering ("IPO").

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 Company's financial condition
and future growth potential. Sonic Innovations designs, manufacturers and
markets digital hearing aids and hearing aid components. The complaint
alleges that from May 2, 2000 through October 24, 2000, Sonic Innovations
saw its stock price soar from its IPO price of $14 per share to as high as
$25 per share as Sonic Innovations misrepresented the true status of its
relationship with Starkey Laboratories, Inc. ("Starkey"), concealing the
fact that Starkey, one of Sonic Innovations's largest customers: (a) had
millions of dollars worth of Sonic Innovations's product in its inventory
that it could not sell; (b) was refusing to pay for product previously
shipped to it by Sonic Innovations; and (c) considered the April 19, 1999
OEM Agreement to be void as Sonic Innovations had materially breached the
OEM Agreement due to, among other things, materially breaching the quality
control provisions. The complaint further alleges that the defendants
knowingly concealed the fact that they were informed prior to the IPO that
the IC-1 chips the company was shipping to Starkey were defective which
would jeopardize its contract with Starkey but would allow defendants to
complete the IPO and artificially inflate Sonic Innovation's Q2
projections, its Q2 results and its Q3 projections/results.

As a result of defendants' alleged false statements/omissions, Sonic
Innovations's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $25 on June 20, 2000 and tumbled to$5-1/2 on
October 25, 2000 as defendants began to partially reveal the true status of
the Company's relationship with Starkey.

Contact: Cauley & Geller, LLP, Boca Raton Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau
888/551-9944 E-mail:info@classlawyer.com


SONIC INNOVATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/sonic/)announced on October 27 that
a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah on behalf of purchasers of Sonic Innovations, Inc.
(Nasdaq: SNCI) securities during the period between May 2, 2000 and October
24, 2000 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Sonic Innovations and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sonic
Innovations designs, manufacturers and markets digital hearing aids and
hearing aid components. The complaint alleges that from May 2, 2000 through
October 24, 2000, Sonic Innovations saw its stock price soar from its IPO
price of $14 per share to as high as $25 per share as Sonic Innovations
misrepresented the true status of its relationship with Starkey
Laboratories, Inc. ("Starkey"), concealing the fact that Starkey, one of
Sonic Innovations's largest customers: had millions of dollars worth of
Sonic Innovations's product in its inventory that it could not sell; (b)
was refusing to pay for product previously shipped to it by Sonic
Innovations; and (c) considered the April 19, 1999 OEM Agreement to be void
as Sonic Innovations had materially breached the OEM Agreement due to,
among other things, materially breaching the quality control provisions.
The complaint further alleges that the defendants knowingly concealed the
fact that they were informed prior to the IPO that the IC-1 chips the
company was shipping to Starkey were defective which would jeopardize its
contract with Starkey but would allow defendants to complete the IPO and
artificially inflate Sonic Innovation's Q2 projections, its Q2 results and
its Q3 projections/results.

As a result of defendants' alleged false statements/omissions, Sonic
Innovations's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $25 on June 20, 2000 and tumbled to $5-1/2 on
October 25, 2000 as defendants began to partially reveal the true status of
the Company's relationship with Starkey. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
on behalf of all purchasers of Sonic Innovations securities during the
Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, who has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Contact: William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP, 800-449-4900, wsl@mwbhl.com


UNITED INSURANCE: Suits over Discriminatory Rates Stayed for Discussions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin Inc. reveals in its report filed with the SEC that in October 1999,
the Florida Department of Insurance filed and served a subpoena upon the
Company's subsidiary, United Insurance Company of America ("United"), in
connection with that Department's investigation into the sale and servicing
of industrial life insurance and small face amount life insurance policies
in the State of Florida.

Subsequently, on December 15, 1999, a purported nationwide class action
lawsuit was filed against United in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Wilson, et al. v. United Insurance Company
of America), on behalf of "all African-American persons who have (or have
had at the time of the Policy's termination), an ownership interest in one
or more Industrial Life Insurance Policies issued, serviced, administered
or purchased from United ...."

Plaintiffs allege discrimination in premium rates in violation of 42 U.S.C.
(S)1981 in addition to various state law claims. Unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages are sought together with equitable relief.

United filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on March 14, 2000 and the case
has been stayed by agreement of the parties to allow time for discussions
regarding possible resolution. The Company has determined that United and
its other career agency life insurance subsidiaries have in force insurance
policies in which race was used as a factor in pricing or benefits;
however, to the best of the Company's knowledge, all such practices ceased
30 or more years ago with regard to newly-issued policies.

At least thirteen similar lawsuits have been filed in other jurisdictions
against the Company and/or its career agency life insurance subsidiaries.
The Company believes that it and its subsidiaries have meritorious defenses
in these matters.

On July 17, 2000 the Florida Department of Insurance issued orders to more
than two dozen life insurers, including United and the Company's other
career agency subsidiaries, to cease collecting a portion of the premiums
on certain industrial life policies attributable to past race-distinct
underwriting practices. These subsidiaries have appealed the orders
directed at them, and accordingly the orders have been stayed pending
further proceedings.

In July, the Company met with representatives of various insurance
departments to discuss a potential nationwide resolution of these matters
with respect to United and the Company's other career agency life insurance
subsidiaries. Further meetings with these departments are expected but have
not yet been scheduled.

In the second quarter of 2000, the Company recorded an after-tax charge of
$32.4 million for its estimated cost to ultimately settle these matters.
Actual costs may differ from this estimate. However, the Company believes
that such difference will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, but could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's results for a given period.


UNITED STATES: Back Pay Court Approves Settlement in COLA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Virgin Islands has approved a
232.5 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by workers who
claimed they were unfairly treated by the cost of living allowance program.

The settlement agreement in Caraballo v. United States, No. 1997-0027,
affects about 70,000 workers whose duty stations are in Alaska, Hawaii, the
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands. The workers
claimed that the methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management to
determine COLAs violated federal law and that class members are entitled to
back pay and increases in current and future COLAs.

The OPM has been working with employee representatives for the past four
years to resolve the issues. Under the agreement, the government will:

* Implement changes and improvements in the COLA methodology for the
   future.

*  Pay more than 232.5 million in back pay for the alleged underpayment
   of COLAs from October 1990 through September 2000.

*  Implement procedural changes and protections, such as limits on rate
    reductions and greater employee involvement in the survey process.

*  Pay interim COLA rates beginning October 2000. These rates will be
    higher than current COLA rates in about half of the COLA area,
    according to the OPM.

The settlement also includes a "safe harbor" clause that would protect the
government from future claims.


WESTELL INDUSTRIES: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cauley & Geller, LLP announced on October 27 that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Westell Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq: WSTL) between June 27, 2000 and October 18, 2000, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Westell and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by making a series of materially
false and misleading statements. The Complaint alleges that in June of this
year, Westell knew that a major customer had made certain changes within
its company and that it would be buying fewer Westell modems, but
continually assured analysts and the market throughout the Class Period
that its second fiscal quarter of 2000 was going to be strong and would not
be affected by the loss of sales.

It is further alleged, that certain officers (including the Company's CEO
and COO) and directors pocketed over $11 million from illegal insider
trades in July while Westell's stock price was peaking and just before an
analyst in August opined that the major customer would be scaling back its
purchases of Westell modems. The complaint alleges that as a result of
these false and misleading statements the price of Westell's securities
were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period, causing plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class to suffer damages.

Contact: Cauley & Geller, LLP, 888-551-9944, or e-mail,
info@classlawyer.com


Y2K LITIGATION: Sage Settles Action Over MAS 90 Software For Up To $8.5M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sage Inc. has agreed to provide an estimated $ 5.6 million to $ 8.5 million
in product credits to settle a class action over Y2K compliancy of its MAS
90 accounting software (DBN, Inc. t/a Y-PERS v. Sage Software, Inc., et
al., No. 799983, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).

(Preliminary Approval Order in Section A. Document # 36-000928-101)

Plaintiff DBN Inc. (t/a "Y-PERS") and Sage have also agreed to a payment to
plaintiffs' counsel of $ 700,000 in fees and costs under a pact
preliminarily approved by Orange County (Calif.) Superior Court Judge
William F. McDonald on Aug. 23.

Pennsylvania-based DBN sued in 1998 on behalf of an estimated 44,000 users
of MAS 90, complaining that the copy it licensed in May 1996 for $ 5,904.20
would not recognize four-digit years. The product was advertised as
software which would take users 'through the 90s and beyond," DBN said.

Judge McDonald overruled Sage's demurrer on Jan. 8, 1999, and on May 27,
1999, certified a nationwide class of users pursuant to the parties'
stipulation.

The notice of proposed settlement attached to the order granting
preliminarily approval notes that Sage contests the allegations and was
prepared to seek summary judgment. Sage maintains that the Year
2000-compliant version contains numerous enhancements and the cost of the
date recognition upgrades was minimal.

                         Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement would give licensees credit toward new or upgraded
services:

Those who licensed MAS 90 after June 1, 1995, purchased upgrades, and are
on a maintenance program would have their choice of a "bank reconciliation"
module, one additional user license, three months of telephone support or a
single user license for Sage's DAC Easy accounting software.* 1995 and
beyond licensees who purchased upgrades and are not on a maintenance
program could opt for one additional user license for MAS 90, a $ 200
coupon toward the purchase of a maintenance program, three months of
telephone support or a single user license for DAC Easy software.* Pre-1995
licensees would be entitled to coupons for MAS 90 software or user licenses
ranging from $ 50 to $ 175, depending on when they acquired the product.

The settlement release will not affect users who ceased using the product
between Oct. 31, 1997, and March 31, 2000. The settlement excludes recovery
for users who received upgrades at no charge.

MAS 90 users have until Nov. 8 to submit a proof of claim. Judge McDonald
scheduled a hearing for that date on final approval.

Co-lead counsel for the settlement class are Jeffrey A. Klafter of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann in New York and Harris L. Pogust of
Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky in Pennsauken, N.J. Plaintiffs'
counsel also includes Jonathan Shub of Sheller, Ludwig & Badey in
Philadelphia, Marc H. Edelson of Hoffman & Edelson in Doylestown, Pa., and
William M. Hensley of the Law Offices of Mark A. Kompa in Newport Beach,
Calif. Sage is represented by Melody Williams Dapp of Pillsbury Madison &
Sutro in Costa Mesa, Calif. (Mealey's Year 2000 Report, September, 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  * * *