/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/001102.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, November 2, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 214


ALLSCRIPTS, INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
AMERICAN PILOTS: Union Loses Appeal to Defer Fine Payment
AT&T CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Lawsuit
AT&T CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Complaint
BRE-X MINERALS: Lawyer Says Felderhof Faces 'Irreversible Prejudice'

FREIGHTWAYS CORP: Union Agreement Bars Privacy Suit Not Retaliation Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: James, Hoyer Files RICO Suit over Coverage Denial
GENERAL MOTORS: Mantese, Miller Says Class Certified for Consumers' Suit
MITSUBISHI MOTOR: 1999 Galant Owners Suffer Consistent Brake Defects
MTBE LITIGATION: Manhattan Panel Considers Consolidating Cases

OFFICE DEPOT: Customer Claiming Misleading Ads Returns To State Court
PCORDER.COM, TRILOGY: Report Filing of Lawsuits over Merger
PILOT NETWORK: Milberg Weiss Expands Period of Securities Suit in CA
PROPERTY TAX: County Attorneys Spar Over Mailing Refund Information
RENT-WAY, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in Pennsylvania

RENT-WAY, INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
SOTHEBY'S, CHRISTIE'S: Face New Lawsuit over Conspiracy
USDA: Native American Farmers Seek Class Status for Discrimination Suit


ALLSCRIPTS, INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
Shareholders filed a federal class-action lawsuit on October 31 charging
Allscripts, Inc. (Nasdaq: MDRX) with stock fraud, the law firm of Berman
DeValerio & Pease LLP (www.bermanesq.com) said.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. It seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Allscripts common stock between
July 27, and October 26, 2000 (the "Class Period"). Berman DeValerio &
Pease, which is based in Boston, has represented defrauded investors in
class actions for nearly two decades.

On October 26, 2000, after the close of trading, Allscripts announced that
its results for the second quarter of 2000 were being "revised to correct
an issue with respect to the recognition of revenue." Specifically, the
company said it was removing $500,000 in revenues due to "ambiguities" and
"documentation matters," a change that increased its net loss for that
quarter by $500,000. Allscripts also disclosed that it would delay
recognition of $1 million in revenue. In the wake of this announcement, the
price of the company's stock fell nearly 45%, from $16-1/8 to $8-7/8.

Contact: Chauncey D. Steele IV, 800-516-9926, bdplaw@bermanesq.com or
Richard Lorant, 617-542-8300, rlorant@bermanesq.com, both of Berman
DeValerio & Pease LLP

AMERICAN PILOTS: Union Loses Appeal to Defer Fine Payment
A multimillion-dollar judgment still looms over the union representing
pilots at American Airlines after a federal appeals court refused to delay
payment for a sickout against the Texas carrier.

The Allied Pilots Association, whose members rejected a proposed one-year
contract extension that also would have waived the $45.5 million award,
must now either negotiate payment with American or file an emergency stay
with the U.S. Supreme Court to secure additional time.

"This was not unexpected," APA spokesman Steve Dominy told The Dallas
Morning News in Wednesday's editions. "The company and the APA had already
agreed on the need to meet and discuss the issue."

Lawyers for the APA were already appealing the judgment to the U.S. Supreme
Court before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has
denied the union's motion to stay a Sept. 21 decision upholding the penalty
in the interim.

The decision was the latest blow to the APA where Richard LaVoy, union
president, and two other top officers announced their resignations last
weekend in a deal reportedly brokered by union board members who wanted to
avoid the embarrassment of a recall election.

Brian Mayhew, union vice president, and secretary-treasurer Bob Morgan had
said that strife within the union was interfering with preparations for new
contract talks next June with American.

Some rank-and-file members of the union, which represents almost 10,000
pilots at Fort Worth-based American, had started circulating petitions to
force a recall election.

A Dallas federal judge had awarded the judgment to the airline after ruling
that the union, including leaders LaVoy and Mayhew, had failed to promptly
obey his back-to-work order.

The judgment, which threatened to bankrupt APA, stemmed from the February
1999 pilot sickout that canceled almost 6,700 flights and cost the airline
$225 million. Pilots launched the labor disruption to protest the way
American had integrated lower-paid pilots from newly acquired Reno Air Inc.
into its operations.

Dominy said he did not know whether the union intended to file an emergency
stay with the Supreme Court. Just as only a tiny percentage of cases
receive a hearing before the highest court in the land, few earn emergency

The union is also defending itself against a class-action lawsuit filed by
passengers inconvenienced by the sickout. That lawsuit, which is still
pending, seeks compensatory damages of at least $50 million and unspecified
punitive damages. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, November 1,

AT&T CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Lawsuit
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has commenced a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of AT&T Corporation (NYSE: T)
securities - including those persons who purchased common stock or call
options or sold put options - between April 24, 2000 and May 1, 2000 (the
"Class Period"). The action charges AT&T and certain of its officers for
violations of Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by reason of material misrepresentations and omissions during the
Class Period, which caused AT&T's securities to trade at artificially
inflated prices.

Specifically, as the complaint alleges, on April 26, 2000, AT&T completed
one of the largest initial public offerings in United States history,
raising $10.6 billion from selling 360 million tracking shares for AT&T
Wireless. On April 24, 2000, several days before the IPO, the complaint
alleges that in an attempt to ensure the success of the offering in the
face of a suddenly unfavorable IPO market, AT&T pre-released the first
quarter results for its wireless division, showing strong growth in its
wireless operations and leading AT&T to raise its full year wireless
projections. However, on May 2, 2000, several days after the IPO and with
the $10.6 billion safely in its coffers, AT&T released the rest of its
first quarter results. These results, especially in the two divisions
responsible for more than 75% of AT&T's revenues, were substantially lower
than analyst expectations and previous company guidance, and led AT&T to
correct, by revising downwards, not only its full-year revenues and
earnings projections for the two divisions but also for AT&T as a whole
(i.e., including its wireless group). The complaint alleges that AT&T was
in possession of its first quarter financial results by April 24, 2000,
but, in an attempt to ensure the success of AT&T Wireless IPO, AT&T
selectively disclosed its first quarter results -- releasing the best
results ahead of the IPO and withholding the worst until afterwards. When
AT&T revealed the true state of its operations and finances on May 2, 2000,
shocked investors watched AT&T shares suffer their worst one-day loss in 13
years. AT&T's common stock plummeted from $49 per share to$41.94 per share.
In the months since AT&T's May 2 surprise, both the common stock and the
wireless shares have continued to decline.

Contact: Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP Ira Press, Esq. or Orie Braun
212/317-2300 obraun@kmslaw.com

AT&T CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Complaint
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
(http://www.milberg.com/att/)announces that a class action lawsuit was
filed on October 27, 2000, on behalf of purchasers of the stock of AT&T
Corporation (NYSE:T) between October 25, 1999 and May 1, 2000 (the "Class
Period"). A copy of the complaint filed in this action can be viewed on
Milberg Weiss' Web site at: http://www.milberg.com/att/.

The action seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
defendants are AT&T and C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of AT&T. Plaintiff alleges that defendants knowingly or recklessly
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and omissions that
misrepresented AT&T's business, operations, new acquisitions and earnings
growth and its ability to achieve profitable growth. Plaintiff further
alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions by defendants influenced
the views of securities analysts and fostered an unrealistically positive
assessment of AT&T and its business, prospects and operations. Plaintiff
alleges that, as a result of such misinformation, AT&T's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants' materially false and misleading
statements, included, among others: statements about AT&T's Concert joint
venture, AT&T's Business Services corporate long-distance segment and
AT&T's accelerating revenue growth made between 10/25/99 and 5/2/00 which
were false due to undisclosed problems. These problems were exacerbated by
AT&T's loss during 99 of two large U.S. government long-distance contracts
(the FTS 2000 contracts) and a huge ($650 million per year) BP Amoco PLC
contract. As a result of these negative factors, AT&T's competitive
position was impaired and AT&T and Armstrong knew by 10/25/99 that AT&T's
Business Services unit's revenues were being materially adversely affected.

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

BRE-X MINERALS: Lawyer Says Felderhof Faces 'Irreversible Prejudice'
John Felderhof, the former exploration chief of Bre-X Minerals Ltd., faces
an "irreversible prejudice" in his insider trading trial because the
Ontario Securities Commission won't hand over all the documents it has used
to build its case, a defence lawyer said.

In closing statements on a motion to get the high-profile case tossed out
on constitutional grounds, Janice Wright summed up what the defence has
argued for the last two weeks: that the commission has shown a "
fundamental disregard" for Felderhof's rights under the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.

"The commission has created a system of disclosure and investigation and
displayed a pattern of behaviour that suggests a win-at-all-costs
mentality," Wright told Ontario Court Judge Peter Hryn.

As closing arguments got under way, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in
favour of investors by allowing a class-action lawsuit to proceed against
Bre-X and company insiders on yet another claim, that of negligent
misrepresentation, in relation to the world's largest gold salting scam.

The plaintiffs, Donald Carom, Osamu Shimizu and Eugene Schonberger, who
held shares in Bre-X and lost money with its collapse, were previously only
allowed to proceed with class-action lawsuits related to fraudulent
misrepresentation, conspiracy and breaching the federal Competition Act.

But a panel of appeal court judges ruled that investors may proceed with a
negligent misrepresentation claim also, overturning two previous court
rulings that refused to certify the lawsuit while at the same time allowing
the other Bre-X class-action claims to go ahead.

The refusal to approve a class-action lawsuit for negligent
misrepresentation left the courts to grapple with the prospect of a
two-track lawsuit, with one portion going ahead as a class action and the
other as a conventional lawsuit.

Joe Groia, who leads Felderhof's defence team on insider trading charges,
will also represent him on the class-action case.

The OSC has charged Felderhof with eight securities violations alleging he
sold $84 million worth of Bre-X stock between April and October, 1996,
while having information that had not been disclosed to investors.

He faces penalties ranging from a fine of $1 million to imprisonment for
two years, plus additional financial penalties of up to three times any
profits from insider trading.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police said there wasn't enough evidence to lay
criminal charges.

If the securities commission is successful, any money from fines will go to
provincial government coffers rather than burned investors.

But Wright complained: "After more than three years of investigation and 16
months after laying charges, the commission has not completed full

"In prosecuting the largest securities case in Canada, the commission has
prejudiced Mr. Felderhof's right to full answer and defence" of the
charges, she said. (The Toronto Star, November 1, 2000)

FREIGHTWAYS CORP: Union Agreement Bars Privacy Suit Not Retaliation Suit
Workers' state law privacy claims for being subject to surveillance cameras
to determine illegal drug use are barred by a union agreement, the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held.

But a retaliatory discharge claim by an individual who says she was fired
because she saw the camera being installed, may be brought regardless of
the labor agreement, the court held.

California-based Consolidated Freightways Corp., apparently in an attempt
to detect and deter the use of drugs by its drivers, installed video
cameras and audio listening devices behind two-way mirrors in the restrooms
of the Mira Loma, Calif., trucking terminal. Drivers discovered this in
September 1997.

The drivers at that terminal were covered under a collective bargaining
agreement between Consolidated and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local No. 63. The union's master agreement states, in Article
26, Section 2, that "the employer may not use video cameras to discipline
or discharge an employee for reasons other than theft of property or
dishonesty." Other parts of the agreement discuss the problem of substance
abuse and outline drug testing procedures.

Truck driver Lloyd Cramer filed a class action suit in state court against
Consolidated, alleging invasion of privacy on behalf of 273 "individuals
lawfully on the premises ... who had a reasonable expectation of privacy
while using defendants' restrooms." Consolidated had the cases moved to a
federal court, which granted its motion to dismiss because Section 301 of
the collective bargaining agreement pre-empts state law claims.

Meanwhile, employees Theresa Hoffman and Massao Shobe tried to sue the
company in state court. Hoffman charged that she was fired because she had
witnessed company officials installing the cameras and Shobe alleged that
he was turned down when he attempted to be rehired by the company, due to
his involvement in the class action lawsuit.

The basic action before the court was whether the individuals were entitled
to go outside the collective bargaining agreement to pursue a state legal
action for activity that may be illegal under state law.

The Ninth Circuit pointed to a series of cases where it decided that
employee suits for violations of privacy interests under California law are
inextricably intertwined with the collective bargaining agreement.
Specifically, in Laws v. Calmat and Utility Workers of America v. Southern
California Edison Co., the appellate court held that state law privacy
challenges to a union employer's drug and alcohol testing programs are
substantially dependent upon the collective bargaining agreement, because
testing is a working condition.

The court said it did not matter, as the parties contended, that
surveillance is illegal but drug testing is not. "The level of culpability
and the consequences may be different, [but] the claim for relief is not;
here as in the random search and drug-testing cases, the employees complain
of an invasion of privacy contrary to their rights under the California

The court found that Cramer's case was properly dismissed because it was
based on privacy rights, which depend on the reasonableness of the
employees' expectations. These expectations, in turn, depend on the extent
to which the party may have bargained away privacy interests. Similarly,
the court upheld dismissal of the emotional distress claim of a fourth
individual, Guillermo Alfaro. In this case as well, the court found that
the employer's conduct could not be seen as outrageous just because a
statutory prohibition may have been violated, but that it would depend on
the relationship between the parties.

But the court reversed dismissal of Hoffman's claim, finding claims based
on retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy are different. In
California, such charges turn on the employer's motivation, not the
employees' expectations. (Drug Detection Report, October 19, 2000)

GENERAL ELECTRIC: James, Hoyer Files RICO Suit over Coverage Denial
Elderly Christian Scientists were summarily denied coverage for long-term
care despite paying thousands of dollars in insurance premiums, according
to a class-action racketeering lawsuit filed October 31 in federal court
against General Electric's insurance subsidiary.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is 99-year-old Olive Woodall, who is
confined to a Christian Science care facility in Largo, Florida. In 1996,
after paying premiums for more than two decades, she was notified that
General Electric Financial Assurance was terminating her long-term care
coverage, the lawsuit stated. As a result, Mrs. Woodall lost benefits of
$3,600 a month towards her monthly care costs of $7,800.

"It seems egregious for there to be no consequence," said Mrs. Woodall's
granddaughter, a Tampa attorney named Deborah Larned Werner.

General Electric took over the long-term care policy of Mrs. Woodall and
approximately 1,100 other Christian Scientists when it acquired Combined
Insurance Company of America in 1996, the lawsuit stated. Combined sold
policies to Christian Scientists between 1977 and 1995, the lawsuit stated.
But Combined never disclosed to the policyholders the portion of the policy
that permitted coverage to be terminated effective November 1 of any given
year, the lawsuit stated.

Edward Baskett, the California-based agent who marketed policies by mail
and telephone to Christian Scientists around the country, said he was
"devastated" when GE announced it was canceling the coverage, and when he
subsequently learned the cancellation provision had been kept secret from
policyholders. " Many are now too old or too ill to get other insurance,"
Baskett said. Compounding their difficulties, Baskett said, is the scarcity
of insurance coverage devised for Christian Scientists, who shun
traditional medical treatment in favor of prayer.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of civil racketeering, fraudulent
inducement, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. It
seeks a trial by jury and unspecified damages.

Contact: Christopher Casper of James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A.,
813-286-4100, or ccasper@jameshoyer.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Mantese, Miller Says Class Certified for Consumers' Suit
A release by Mantese, Miller & Shea, P.L.L.C. says that, on October 27,
2000, the Hon. David F. Breck of the Oakland County Circuit Court certified
a state-wide class action against General Motors requiring the Company to
notify each and every Michigan resident who purchased or leased a new GM
vehicle under the General Motors new vehicle purchase program after
February 28, 1999 that General Motors is prohibited from requiring the use
of binding arbitration to resolve warranty or repair related claims of
class members.

E. Powell Miller, an attorney for the class members and a partner with the
Troy lawfirm of Mantese, Miller & Shea, P.L.L.C., said of the Court's
ruling: "This is a major victory for consumers in Michigan as they now have
the opportunity to have their lemon law claims determined by courts and
juries, rather than arbitrators selected by the automotive industry."

Christopher Lovasz, another attorney for the class members and a partner
with Consumer Legal Services, a leading lawfirm representing thousands of
consumers in lemon law cases against the automotive industry, said: "We are
especially pleased with Judge Breck's ruling which effectively levels the
playing field and prevents GM from retaliating against their customers for
bringing lemon law lawsuits in the courts."

Contact: E. Powell Miller, Esq. of Mantese, Miller & Shea, P.L.L.C.,
248-267-1200, fax, 248-267-9551, or cellular, 248-872-3661; or Christopher
Lovasz, Esq. of Consumer Legal Services, 734-261-4700, or fax, 734-261-4737

MITSUBISHI MOTOR: 1999 Galant Owners Suffer Consistent Brake Defects
The law firms of Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.; Sheller, Ludwig & Badey P.C.;
and Mehri, Malkin and Ross have filed a class action suit against
Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Motor Sales
of America, Inc., alleging brake defects in 1999 Mitsubishi Galant Models.
Court papers were served to Mitsubishi's legal counsel November 1.

According to documents filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division, Camden County, the 1999 Galant was manufactured with a brake
defect, which results in premature wear of the front brake rotors. This
defect causes the brakes to grind and requires continuous replacement of
the brake pads and rotors.

Jersey City resident Isam Haddadin is the lead plaintiff on behalf of the
class. In court papers, Haddadin alleges that his 1999 Galant, originally
purchased in September 1999, has been returned to the dealership repeatedly
to remedy the braking problem. On each occasion, the dealer finds the brake
components to be defective and replaces them under warranty provisions,
only to have the problem return within a few thousand miles. Mr. Hadaddin's
complaint alleges that the same defects exist in all 1999 Galants,
estimating that the problem affects several thousand Galants in New Jersey,
and tens of thousands nationally. Haddadin claims that his car often
vibrates, the brakes grind when pushed down, and he has to step on the
brake several seconds before preparing to stop. "This car has caused a
great deal of aggravation to me and my family and I am hoping that by
filing this case, Mitsubishi will finally address our concern," said
Haddadin. "I don't want other people to have to go through the same
problems we have."

"We have seen the 1999 Galant brake problem with alarming regularity," said
co-counsel Craig Thor Kimmel of Kimmel and Silverman, P.C., "The cases
share a nearly identical fact pattern of brake rotor repairs being
performed every 3,000-5,000 miles. Rotors will normally last 50,000 miles
or more. When they reach the point of needing replacement, the ability to
stop the car is diminished."

Owners and lessees of 1999 Mitsubishi Galants models who would like more
information on this class action can log onto www.lemonlaw.com or contact
Craig Thor Kimmel at 1-800-Lemon-Law (800-536-6652) or via e-mail at
lemonesq@aol.com. Since 1991, Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. (www.lemonlaw.com)
has grown to become the nation's largest lemon law firm, handling
approximately one in four cases filed across the nation. To date, Kimmel &
Silverman has represented more than 12,000 individual consumer claims,
exclusive of class actions, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, making the firm
the largest practice of its sort in the United States. Each of the nine
attorneys employed at the firm share the partners' drive and determination
to achieve the best results for their clients and expand the rights of

Sheller Ludwig and Badey, P.C. (www.sheller.com) focuses primarily on the
representation of individuals and classes in cases regarding defective
products, unfair business practices and injuries resulting from medical
treatment. The Firm is currently lead counsel in several nationwide class

Contact: Michael Sacks of CramerSweeney PR, 856-793-4000, ext. 604, or
sacks@cramersweeney.com, for Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.

MTBE LITIGATION: Manhattan Panel Considers Consolidating Cases
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard arguments Sept. 22 on
whether to create an MDL for methyl tertiary butyl ether cases.

Although counsel who appeared before the panel in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York were not unanimous, the consensus was
clearly for a multidistrict litigation. Where to seat the MDL was not so
clear. A ruling on the motions could be filed as soon as mid-October.

Andrew Langen, defense counsel in the England v. Atlantic Richfield case in
the Southern District of Illinois, pointed to the similarities in that case
and Barisha v. Amerada Hess in the Southern District of New York. In
response to a question from Judge John F. Nagle, chairman of the
seven-member panel, Langen said both cases are property damage claims.

Langen also noted the cases filed since Sept. 15 in the Middle District and
Southern District of Florida, also property damage cases (Sutton Farms
[USA] Inc., et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., No. 00-3544, S.D. Fla.,
and Paul Douglas Young, et al. v. ExxonMobile Oil Corp., No. 00-cv-1912,
M.D. Fla.; See story below).

"Southern Illinois is the proper forum," Langen said.

                          Docket Clearer

He cited a clearer docket and the status of England: a case management
order is in place, discovery is tentatively scheduled for 2001 and the
motions for class certification are scheduled to be submitted early in

Most counsel seemed to agree that it would be an error to include Buddy
Lynn, et al. v. Amoco Oil Co., et al. from the Middle District of Alabama
because of its focus on allegedly allowing underground storage tanks to
continue to leak. But Morris Ratner of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
in New York said MTBE and LUSTs overlap. It would be inappropriate to
create an MDL without Lynn, he said.

Berisha should not be moved to an MDL in the Southern District of Illinois,
Lewis Saul of Lewis Saul and Associations in Washington, D.C., said,
because the case is so far along. All the plaintiff's discovery is
complete, Saul said, and all the plaintiffs have been deposed. Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin is considering a motion for summary judgment, he said.

"If you decide to MDL these cases," Saul said, "send them to New York. Let
us try the New York case as the bellwether case."

Richard E. Wallace Jr. of Wallace King Marraro & Branson in Washington,
D.C., defense counsel for Shell, Texaco, Equilon and Motiva, said there are
too many differences between the parties, the rules and claims.
Centralizing the cases would be likely to cause chaos, he said. "These
cases will overwhelm the court," Wallace said. (Mealey's Litigation Report:
MTBE, September, 2000)

OFFICE DEPOT: Customer Claiming Misleading Ads Returns To State Court
Attorneys for a Miami man who accused Office Depot of misleading
advertising say they will go forward with their state case, even though the
U.S. Supreme Court refused this week to reconsider a federal appeals court
decision tossing out a related case.

Robert Maland, one of the attorneys who represents David Simon in his claim
against the office supply retailer, said the high courts action means that
they now can press forward with the class-action suit they filed July 10 in
Miami-Dade Circuit Court. Simons case had been stayed pending the outcome
of the federal suit.

We are now seeking class certification in Florida on behalf of both David
Simon, a local CPA, and Cheryl Cohen, who is the plaintiff in the federal
court case, said Maland a solo practitioner. Cohen lives in Georgia.

Simon filed suit against the Delray Beach company contending that its
low-price guarantee advertising is deceptive. The suit, which seeks
class-action status on behalf of more than 1,000 Office Depot customers in
Florida and Georgia, alleges they were led to believe they would get a
better deal by ordering through the stores catalog, rather than by buying
directly from the store.

Simon claims that the items he purchased through the catalog cost 4 cents
to $ 1.50 more than they would have been at an Office Depot store. His suit
seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and alleges, among
other things, unfair and deceptive trade practices. It seeks to prevent the
chain from continuing to make such pricing claims.

The federal court action made the same allegations. However, the 11th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld U.S. District Judge Joan Lenards decision
dismissing a similar class-action suit filed by Cohen. Lenard ruled that
the $ 2.30 Cohen alleged she was overcharged did not meet the $ 75,000
damage threshold required to get a case heard in federal court. Cohen had
hoped to meet the threshold by combining the losses of all eventual
plaintiffs in the suit. Fearing that the statute of limitations would run
out, Maland and co-counsel Alan Lodish of Bilzen Sumberg Dunn Baena Price &
Axelrod in Miami, filed suit in state court while they waited for the U.S.
Supreme Courts ruling.

Maland said it will now be up to a state judge whether to certify Simons
case for Florida residents only, for Florida and Georgia residents or as a
national class in state court. (Broward Daily Business Review, November 1,

PCORDER.COM, TRILOGY: Report Filing of Lawsuits over Merger
pcOrder.com Inc. (Nasdaq: PCOR) and Trilogy Software, Inc. jointly
announced that they and the members of the board of directors of pcOrder
have been named as defendants in several purported stockholder class
actions opposing a proposed merger transaction between the companies.

On October 25, 2000, pcOrder and Trilogy jointly announced that they have
signed a definitive merger agreement under which Trilogy will commence a
cash tender offer to acquire all of pcOrder's outstanding Class A common
stock at a price of $6.375 per share. Any shares of pcOrder's Class A
common stock not purchased in the tender offer will be acquired by Trilogy
in a subsequent merger transaction at the same $6.375 per share cash price.

To date, four lawsuits have been filed in Delaware Chancery Court and one
lawsuit has been filed in Texas District Court. Plaintiffs in these
lawsuits are alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the individual
defendants and by Trilogy as majority stockholder in connection with the
proposed merger transaction. The companies intend to vigorously defend
against them.

pcOrder security holders and any potential investors in pcOrder stock are
advised to carefully read the tender offer/going private statement on
Schedule TO, the solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9
and any other documents pcOrder or Trilogy files with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed tender offer or merger
when they become available because they will contain important information
about the proposed transaction. Investors and security holders may obtain
free copies of these documents (when available) and other documents filed
by pcOrder or Trilogy at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. These documents
(when available) may also be obtained for free by contacting Tiffany
O'Brien at pcOrder (512.684.1171) or Jeanne McNeil at Trilogy

PILOT NETWORK: Milberg Weiss Expands Period of Securities Suit in CA
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/pilot/)announced on October 31 that
a new class action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Pilot
Network Services, Inc. ("Pilot") (NASDAQ:PILT) publicly traded securities
during the period between August 11, 1998, the date of its initial public
offering, and October 17, 2000 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Pilot and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pilot provides
comprehensive security services over the Internet. The Company provides
secure access and gateway services, secure hosting and electronic commerce
services, and secure extranet and virtual private networking services.
Pilot's protected services include e-commerce and e-business services,
Internet access and gateways, and extranet/VPN.

On 10/18/00, Pilot announced that: (i) its CFO, who had joined the Company
just three weeks prior, had resigned; (ii) its Vice President of Financial
Planning had resigned; (iii) it would not meet analysts' expectations for
the September quarter; and (iv) it was conducting a formal investigation
into its revenue recognition practices.

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

PROPERTY TAX: County Attorneys Spar Over Mailing Refund Information
Lawyers in a pair of property tax lawsuits are arguing over whether
taxpayers should get more information mailed to them about the tax-refund

Attorneys for the plaintiffs have asked a judge if they can send out more
information regarding the process, but opposing attorneys insist that won't
be necessary. In a motion filed in October, Jack Butt, one of the opposing
attorneys, said another mailing to taxpayers would be "duplicative,
unnecessary, wasteful and possibly confusing." Butt is one of a group of
lawyers who oppose the $ 6.2 million that the plaintiffs' attorneys have
proposed to be paid for their work on the cases.

The lawsuits, the first of which was filed by Jeanne Hicks in 1997,
established that governments and school districts in Washington County
should have reduced their property taxes from 1994-99 and didn't. Because
the 14 taxing entities didn't roll back millage rates in accordance with
the Arkansas Constitution, taxpayers now are entitled to refunds.

Washington County is in the second of a six-week process in which taxpayers
may claim their refunds, and the plaintiffs' attorneys wanted to send out
more information about the process. Butt, however, said in the motion that
more communication with the taxpayers is needless. If the judge allows the
information to be sent, the plaintiffs' attorneys should pay for it rather
than using the money set aside for taxpayer refunds, Butt argued. (The
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, October 12, 2000)

RENT-WAY, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers of
the publicly-traded securities of Rent-Way, Inc. (NYSE: RWY), between
January 18, 2000 and October 27, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A
copy of the complaint is available from the Court.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. Named as defendants in the complaint are
Rent-Way, Jeffrey A. Conway (President and Chief Operating Officer) and
Matthew J. Marini (Controller and Chief Accounting Officer).

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges
that the defendants issued materially false and misleading financial
statements that misstated the Company's net income and earnings by
under-reporting expenses during the Class Period. As a result, the
complaint alleges, the Company may be forced to restate its previously
issued financial statements for the first, second and third quarters of the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2000.

The dissemination of this materially misleading information caused
Rent-Way's common stock to be artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period. Indeed, when the Company disclosed that the Audit Committee was
investing possible accounting irregularities, the stock price collapsed
from $ 23.4375 to $4.75 per share, a loss of almost 80% of its value.

Contact: Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations of at Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 800-217-1522, 212-779-1414 or RWY@bernlieb.com

RENT-WAY, INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2000, on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Rent-Way, Inc. ("Rent-Way" or the "Company")
(NYSE:RWY) between January 18, 2000 and October 30, 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/rentway/

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, located at U.S. Courthouse, P.O. Box 1820, Erie,
PA 16507-1820, against defendants Rent-Way, William E. Morgenstern, William
A. McDonnell, Jeffrey A. Conway, and Matthew J. Marini.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between
January 18, 2000 and October 30, 2000, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Rent-Way securities. On October 30, 2000, the Company announced
that it is investigating certain accounting matters, including possible
accounting irregularities, which if confirmed would result in the need to
revise earlier reported unaudited financial results for fiscal year 2000.
In response to this announcement, the price of Rent-Way common stock
declined on October 31, 2000, from $23.4375 per share to $4.75 per share, a
one-day decrease of 79%.

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

SOTHEBY'S, CHRISTIE'S: Face New Lawsuit over Conspiracy
A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of customers of Sotheby's Holdings
Inc. and Christie's International contends that several officials of both
houses were aware of a conspiracy by their superiors to fix prices, but did
nothing to stop it.

The papers, which offer no proof to back up the accusations, contend that
figures including Max M. Fisher, 92, the former vice chairman of Sotheby's,
and Daniel P. Davison, a former chairman of the U.S. Trust Company who
served as chairman of Christie's in America from 1989 to 1993, had
knowledge of the collusion.

Sotheby's adamantly denied the charges involving the newly named officials,
while Christie's refused to comment, as it has since the auction house
investigation began.

The papers were filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan by the law
firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll of Washington and Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach of New York.

Last month, Sotheby's and its former president and chief executive, Diana
D. Brooks, pleaded guilty to violating antitrust laws. The Justice
Department has continued to investigate the company's former chairman, A.
Alfred Taubman. Each company has agreed to pay a combined total of $512
million to settle another class-action suit, involving more than 100,000
buyers and sellers.

It is common in class-action suits for lawyers to make broad accusations
when first filing and in the course of litigation to try to develop
supportive information. In this case, in addition to the four top former
officers of the two houses who have already been named in connection with
the accusations, they have named Christie's three most important
business-getters: Christopher Burge, its honorary chairman in America;
Stephen S. Lash, its chairman in America; and Francois Curiel, chairman in
Europe. All three men serve as vice chairmen of Christie's board.

The suit also names two former Christie's employees, Mr. Davison and
Patricia Hambrecht, an 11-year veteran of the company who was its president
until last year.

Ms. Hambrecht and Mr. Davison could not be reached for comment.

Marcia Horowitz, a spokesman for Christie's, said, "As we have done in the
past, we are not commenting on pending litigation."

The suit also names three former officials of Sotheby's: Mr. Fisher;
Michael L. Ainslie, a former president and chief executive; and Kevin A.
Bousquette, who was the company's executive vice president and chief
operating officer.

Sotheby's issued a statement saying that "the company and its outside
counsel have thoroughly investigated this matter and are convinced that Mr.
Fisher, Mr. Ainslie and Mr. Bousquette neither participated in nor knew of
any wrongdoing."

Mr. Ainslie issued a separate statement saying: "I was neither involved in
nor knew of any of the alleged conduct that has been described in the media
and the lawsuits. Over the past year I have been fully interviewed by the
Justice Department about my years at Sotheby's. I am extremely surprised
and offended to find myself named in this class action." Mr. Bousquette
said: "The allegations relating to me are, simply put, false. My inclusion
in this lawsuit is an outrageous abuse of the legal process." (The New York
Times, November 1, 2000)

USDA: Native American Farmers Seek Class Status for Discrimination Suit
Nearly 100 Native American farmers and ranchers crowded into a federal
courtroom in hopes of turning their discrimination suit against the
Agriculture Department into a class action covering at least 30,000

The Native Americans have accused agriculture officials of discriminating
against them by denying or delaying farm loans and emergency assistance,
forcing many into foreclosure proceedings. The lawsuit is patterned after a
similar suit filed by black farmers in which the U.S. government agreed to
pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Both suits alleged that agriculture officials have treated minorities
unfairly during the past 20 years and then failed to investigate
discrimination complaints, according to lawyer Alexander J. Pires Jr. In
recent weeks, Pires and fellow attorneys have filed similar suits against
the USDA covering Hispanics and women.

Pires asked Senior U.S. District Judge William B. Bryant to permit the
Native Americans to bring their suit as a large class action rather than
pursuing claims individually. Pires said the lawsuit, filed last November,
already has grown to include more than 700 individual plaintiffs who share
common complaints about mistreatment. Many were in court, traveling from
Montana, Oklahoma and other states to attend the proceedings and stage a
protest rally outside USDA headquarters. "There is a farming crisis, a
tragedy in Indian country," said Tex Hall, chairman of the Three Affiliated
Tribes, representing the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara nations. "When the
judge makes his decision, it's make-or-break for many Indian families."

Justice Department lawyer Neil Koslowe maintained that each claim should be
tried separately, not as a class. "Each individual's claim is different,"
he said.

Koslowe said that unlike the case filed by the black farmers, matters
involving Native Americans also involve dealings with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, an arm of the Interior Department, as well as rules under numerous
treaties for various tribes.

Bryant challenged Koslowe's argument, saying that the "finish line" for
everyone involved is the same--a decision by an Agriculture Department
official. The judge did not say when he will decide whether to certify the
case as a class action.

The case involving the black farmers generated what could become the
biggest civil rights settlement in U.S. history. The government has paid $
50,000 each to more than 8,300 claimants, for a total of more than $ 417
million. An additional 3,163 claims have been approved and are awaiting
payment, representing $ 158 million. All told, Pires said he expected more
than $ 1 billion to be paid by the end of the process.

USDA officials said Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has taken many steps
to improve the department's treatment of minorities. He restored the USDA's
Office of Civil Rights, which was abolished during the Reagan
administration, reduced a backlog of discrimination complaints and brought
in outside investigators, officials said.

USDA spokeswoman Mary Beth Schultheis declined to comment on the Indians'
lawsuit, saying it was up to the courts to decide those issues. But
overall, she said, Glickman "has no higher priority than improving USDA's
record on civil rights and ensuring that all of our employees and customers
are treated with fairness, dignity and respect." (The Washington Post,
November 1, 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  * * *