CAR_Public/001110.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, November 10, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 220

                             Headlines

BRANCH DAVIDIAN: Former Waco Prosecutor Indicted for Obstructing Justice
COTTER CORP: CO Uranium Mill Claims Victory in Low Damages Award
GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schoengold & Sporn Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Defends 1996 NJ Suit over Differentialy Priced Acuvue
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lens Maker Branch Named in Antitrust Suit Filed 94-96

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Retail Pharmacies Sue over Brand Name Drugs
LIFECELL CORP: Defends CA Lawsuit over Human Tissue; Business Goes on
LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Tries to Settle 1999 Securities Suit in Delaware
PENTAGON: Lawsuit Contests Right to Revoke Obese Soldiers' Bonuses
PHILIPPINE OFFICIALS: Survivors Sue; Garbage Dump Reopened in Manila

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: 3 US Voters File Suit Seeking New Florida Vote
PRUCO LIFE: Private Action on Varying Insurance Fees Barred by Act
RITE AID: Reaches Agreement to Settle Consolidated Securities Lawsuits
RURAL METRO: 2 Lawsuits over Securities in 1998 Pending in Arizona
SPECTRIAN CORP: Resolved Recently Securities Suits Filed 1997, ‘98 in CA

TOBACCO LITIGATION: P.M., R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard to Post Bond & Appeal
USDA: Hispanic farmers May Join Lawsuit over Availability of Loans
WAR VICTIMS: N. Koreans May Seek Individual Redress from Japan
WAR VICTIMS: U.S. Lawyer Sees Huge Awards From Japan To Chinese Victims
ZILA INC: SEC Investigates on Alleged Trading on OraTest® NDA Approval

ZILA INC: Securities Complaint in Arizona Proceeds to Trial in Feb 2001

                             *********

BRANCH DAVIDIAN: Former Waco Prosecutor Indicted for Obstructing Justice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A former government prosecutor has been indicted on federal charges of
obstructing the investigation into the 1993 siege at the Branch Davidian
compound at Waco, Texas, that he helped set in motion. Former assistant
U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston was charged with two counts of obstruction of
justice and three counts of lying to investigators and a federal grand
jury. The indictment was returned Wednesday as Waco special counsel John
C. Danforth released his final report absolving the government of
wrongdoing in the siege.

Attorney Michael Kennedy, while acknowledging that Johnston made mistakes
in his dealings with the special counsel, called the charges baseless and
unfair. ``Danforth seeks to destroy the messenger and whitewash the
governmental excesses of Waco,'' he said. ``While Bill's mistakes were
harmless, the same cannot be said for so many other government employees,
who today are merely chastised or ignored completely by Mr. Danforth.''

Johnston helped draft the search warrant that the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms tried to execute on Feb. 28, 1993, at the Waco
compound. The botched raid turned into a gunfight in which four federal
agents and six Davidians were killed.

The shootout sparked the 51-day standoff that ended on April 19, 1993,
with a fire that consumed the compound, killing sect leader David Koresh
and some 80 followers inside.

Johnston in 1994 helped convict nine Davidians during their criminal
trial.

In 1999, federal Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. ordered the government to give
him all records and evidence connected with the standoff. Johnston then
complained publicly that the Justice Department was covering up evidence
showing FBI agents had fired pyrotechnic tear gas at the compound.

Justice Department and FBI officials denied for years that the government
had used anything capable of sparking fires when they employed tanks and
tear gas to try to end the standoff.  The FBI's subsequent confirmation
that some pyrotechnic tear gas was used prompted Attorney General Janet
Reno to ask Danforth to investigate.

In July, Danforth in a preliminary report absolved the government of
blame in the blaze. A week earlier, an advisory jury hearing a $675
million wrongful-death lawsuit brought by surviving cult members and the
victims' families reached the same conclusion.

Johnston left the U.S. attorney's office in February and Danforth's
investigators questioned him repeatedly. He admitted in July that he had
withheld several pages of notes from 1993 dealing with the FBI's use of
pyrotechnic gas.

A congressional report issued last week praised Johnston for helping
reveal the use of pyrotechnics but condemned his failure to surrender the
notes, which indicated he was told in 1993 that FBI agents fired several
incendiary military tear gas grenades.

``I don't perceive him as a whistle-blower,'' Danforth said. ``Because I
think the meaning of whistle-blower is somebody who brings into the light
things that were hidden. The allegations in this indictment are to the
contrary: somebody who hides things.''

Johnston said in a statement Wednesday that he withheld the notes out of
fear that hostile colleagues might try to use what he had written to
discredit him. He added that he didn't reveal the notes to Danforth
because his investigators ``treated me with the same loathing and
hostility that I had encountered from the Justice Department.''  (St.
Louis (AP), November 9, 2000)


COTTER CORP: CO Uranium Mill Claims Victory in Low Damages Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court jury awarded comparatively low damages to 11 Lincoln Park
property owners or residents for alleged contamination from the Cotter
Corp. uranium mill in Canon City.

"This is a tremendous defense victory," Cotter lawyer John Watson of
Denver said of the verdict delivered at the end of a month-long trial.
"The jury found no liability for any health claims of any kind."

Suzelle Smith of Los Angeles and other lawyers for 13 plaintiffs, two of
whom received no damage award, left the courtroom without saying whether
they would appeal the $ 42,501 verdict. They originally sought millions
of dollars.

The jury of five women and four men found that Cotter did not cause
health problems but should pay damages for trespass in the form of
potential contamination of well water, ground and air in nearby Lincoln
Park. Awarded $ 5,000 each were Nard Claar, Sara Claar, Julie Ann Wright,
Linda Johnson and Mike Hadley. It awarded $ 1 in nominal damages to
Katherine Hadley. The jury awarded $ 3,500 each to Jennifer Wright,
Blaine Johnson, Alicia Johnson, Nicole Wright and Canon Farms Trust.

The jury also voted unanimously to order Cotter to pay for medical
monitoring of the 10 people, but rejected all claims by two others --
Russ and Bonita Jewett. Watson said medical monitoring is relatively
inexpensive.

In view of the fact that expert witness and legal fees exceed the cost of
damage awards and medical monitoring, U.S. District Judge Zita Weinshienk
suggested the lawyers try to settle the case to avoid the time and
expense of continuing to litigate.

This was the second in four scheduled trials -- two already completed and
two to go -- against Cotter in a lawsuit originally filed on behalf of 66
plaintiffs from Lincoln Park. The first verdict awarding $ 2.9 million to
13 of the plaintiffs was appealed. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in Denver found for Cotter, throwing out the verdict and ordering a new
trial, which has been scheduled for next March.

A fourth trial for the remaining 40 plaintiffs is scheduled for next May
unless there's a settlement.

Lincoln Park claims against Cotter go back to an earlier lawsuit by 532
residents. It ended in 1994 in a confidential settlement after a jury
awarded $ 79,600 to eight of those 532 plaintiffs.

Cotter's property is a federal Superfund cleanup site. Years ago, the
company entered into a $ 15 million consent decree to cover state health
regulators' enforcement costs and end the government's case.

The subsequent protracted litigation has involved claims of private
citizens' damages from the mill. (The Pueblo Chieftain, November 6, 2000)



GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schoengold & Sporn Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C. announced on November 9 that a lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Del Global Technologies Corp. (Nasdaq: DGTC) ("Del Global" or the
"Company") and certain of the Company's key officers and directors on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Del Global during the
period December 7, 1999 through and including November 6, 2000 (the "Time
Period"). If you purchased Del Global stock during the Time Period, you
may contact the undersigned at 212-964-0046 (call collect) or by e-mail
at delgloballawsuit@aol.com to obtain more information to determine if
you would like to participate in the lawsuit.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by, among other
things, omitting material information and disseminating materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company and its financial
condition, contained in public statements, filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and press releases. On November 6, 2000,
Del Global shocked the investment community when it announced that its
net income for the fiscal year ending July 29, 2000 would be
"substantially lower than its net income for Fiscal 1999 and that it
would delay the filing of its Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. It is expected that the Company will have to revise its
fiscal 2000 quarterly results." The Company further announced that it "is
currently conducting a review to determine if it will also be required to
restate Fiscal 1999 results." As a result, the complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Del Global's financial statements were
materially false and misleading in that they overstated revenue and net
income. Following this announcement, trade in the Company shares was
halted on Monday, November 6, 2000. In addition, Company insiders took
advantage of their inside information and sold shares of Del Global stock
at artificially inflated prices.

Contact: Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 212-964-0046, or
DELGLOBALLAWSUIT@AOL.COM


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Defends 1996 NJ Suit over Differentialy Priced Acuvue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care is also a defendant in a nationwide
consumer class action brought on behalf of purchasers of its ACUVUE brand
contact lenses. The plaintiffs in that action, which was filed in 1996 in
New Jersey State Court, allege that Vision Care sold its 1-DAY ACUVUE
lens at a substantially cheaper price than ACUVUE and misled consumers
into believing these were different lenses when, in fact, they were
allegedly "the same lenses." Plaintiffs are seeking substantial damages
and an injunction against supposed improper conduct. The Company believes
these claims are without merit and is defending the action vigorously.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lens Maker Branch Named in Antitrust Suit Filed 94-96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company's subsidiary, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc. (Vision
Care), together with another contact lens manufacturer, a trade
association and various individual defendants, is a defendant in several
consumer class actions and an action brought by multiple State Attorneys
General on behalf of consumers alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws. These cases, which were filed between July 1994 and
December 1996 and are consolidated before the United States district
Court for the Middle District of Florida, assert that enforcement of
Vision Care's long-standing policy of selling contact lenses only to
licensed eye care professionals is a result of an unlawful conspiracy to
eliminate alternative distribution channels from the disposable contact
lens market. The Company believes that these actions are without merit
and is defending them vigorously.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Retail Pharmacies Sue over Brand Name Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Company, along with numerous other pharmaceutical manufacturers and
distributors, is a defendant in a large number of individual and class
actions brought by retail pharmacies in state and federal courts under
the antitrust laws. These cases assert price discrimination and
price-fixing violations resulting from an alleged industry-wide agreement
to deny retail pharmacists price discounts on sales of brand name
prescription drugs. The Company believes the claims against the Company
in these actions are without merit and is defending them vigorously.


LIFECELL CORP: Defends CA Lawsuit over Human Tissue; Business Goes on
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 2000, a Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California, San Bernardino County, Central District, captioned Ann Regner
et. al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Inland
Eye & Tissue Bank of Redlands, et al. The Complaint is styled as a class
action on behalf of all close family members of those deceased persons
whose tissues were collected, processed, stored or distributed in
California. The defendants, 19 of whom are named, are the class of all
licensed tissue banks in California as well as other companies, including
LifeCell, which store, process, or distribute human tissue as part of
their business. The Complaint alleges that tissue banks routinely fail to
obtain proper informed consent from family members when soliciting the
donation of human tissue for transplant. The Complaint also alleges that
the defendants, including LifeCell, make profits from the storing,
processing and distribution of human tissue in contravention of
California law. Plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin the defendants, including LifeCell, from doing business
in California was recently denied. LifeCell does not believe the claims
are meritorious, is vigorously defending such action, and has filed a
motion to dismiss the Complaint. LifeCell's insurance carrier has agreed
to defend all claims against the Company other than punitive damages.


LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Tries to Settle 1999 Securities Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 1999, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware as a putative class action on behalf
of certain stockholders of Little Switzerland Inc. against the Company,
certain of its existing and former officers and directors, DRHC and
Stephen G.E. Crane. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by failing to disclose that DRHC's financing
commitment to purchase the Company's shares expired on April 30, 1998,
before the Company's stockholders were scheduled to vote to approve the
merger between the Company and DRHC at the May 8, 1998 special meeting of
stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, including,
without limitation, reasonable expenses in connection with this action.

The plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 10, 1999 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint on
December 7, 1999. On January 28, 2000, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss. The motion remains pending. The
Company has entered into discussions to settle this action. However,
there can be no assurances that these discussions will result in a
settlement of this action, or that any settlement will be on terms
favorable to the Company. As a result, at this time, management of the
Company is unable to determine the financial impact this action may have
on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.


PENTAGON: Lawsuit Contests Right to Revoke Obese Soldiers' Bonuses
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Mumme was born into a military family and planned to make a career
from his job as a nuclear technician on a Navy submarine. But in 1998, he
received some surprising news - not only would he be kicked out of the
military for being overweight, but he would have to pay back his
enlistment bonus of nearly $ 8,000. That was a problem for Mr. Mumme, who
had already spent the money on a new car, and who suddenly was faced with
unemployment. Pretty soon he had a collection agency on his back - and
the Internal Revenue Service. "He became despondent and disillusioned,"
says his father. "It took about six months for him to get back on his
feet."

Mumme is one of at least 20,000 servicemen and women kicked out of the
military and ordered to pay back their signing bonuses in the last
decade.

Under a federal ruling handed down last week, they'll be able to sue the
Pentagon in a class-action lawsuit to recover damages. The suit does not
contest the right of the Pentagon to use weight as an employment
criterion. But those who are joining the legal action say that revoking
paid bonuses is unfair - and a step too far. "[The Pentagon] hasn't been
very nice about collecting these bonuses," says Michael Feldman, the
Brunswick, Maine, lawyer who initiated the suit with Mumme as his first
client. "This shows the Department of Defense has to follow the law just
like everyone else."

According to Mr. Feldman, as many as 30,000 former servicemen could join
the suit. The lost bonuses that they would seek to have returned range
from $ 5,000 to $ 10,000. One former sailor, Charles Wiggins, of
Canandaigua, N.Y., is trying to get back $ 13,262.

The military's weight requirements existed before the 1990s, but during
the past decade, the standards have risen, and enforcement has become
more strict.

Today, each branch has its own requirements, based on body-fat
percentage. The Army, for example, allows body fat ranging from 20 to 26
percent, depending on age, for men, and 30 to 36 percent for women. But
overall, the services are becoming less strict at a time when the
Pentagon is struggling to meet its congressionally mandated personnel
numbers.

The Navy, which has one of the more severe recruiting and retention
problems, currently has a moratorium on discharging sailors because of
weight. Instead, they require overweight sailors to get extra training
and, if necessary, nutrition and weight-management counseling. If someone
continues to fail weight or fitness tests, they can be denied promotion.

In the past, sailors have been given fitness tests every six months and
were discharged if they failed three in a four-year period. Sailors could
be failed even if they passed all the physical tests - push-ups, sit-ups,
and running or swimming - but were overweight.

The courts have established "that the military can decide its standards,
even if it sounds unfair," says Feldman.

Yet many of those who were discharged say that ongoing personnel trends
and particular assignments have meant that rules are inconsistently
applied. (Neither the Pentagon nor the Justice Department immediately
returned calls about the case.)

Bill Torrance, a former Navy sound technician, was discharged in 1997 for
being 10 pounds overweight. He was 6 feet, 2 inches and 221 pounds at the
time. He says that one of the reasons he was probably kicked out is that
he was in a retraining program at the time - rather than on a submarine
assignment, where he would have been more difficult to replace. After he
got the boot, he had to pay back $ 4,000 in bonus money. A husband and
father of three children, he was unemployed for six months before finding
a job with the Wyoming Department of Transportation. "I can understand
that there needs to be weight requirements for some jobs if they're
highly physical," he says. "But my job was to sit in front of a sonar
screen for six hours a day." (The Christian Science Monitor, November 9,
2000)


PHILIPPINE OFFICIALS: Survivors Sue; Garbage Dump Reopened in Manila
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Facing mounting garbage problems, a Manila suburb said that it reopened a
garbage dump which collapsed four months ago and killed at least 218
people. Piles of garbage have littered many streets in Quezon City since
the Payatas dump was closed by President Joseph Estrada after a
rain-soaked mountain of garbage there crashed down on nearby shanties on
July 10. Authorities say more than 100 other people remain missing and
are presumed still buried under tons of trash.

Mayor Mel Mathay ordered part of the dump site reopened after typhoon
damaged a bridge leading to a nearby landfill, making trips there by dump
trucks longer.

''There is no other option except the temporary opening of the Payatas
dumpsite,'' said Mathay's spokesman, Greg Banacia. ''We just want to
reduce the volume of garbage in the city.'' The city produces about 2,000
tons of garbage daily, he said.

Banacia said measures are being taken to prevent another collapse of the
garbage mountain. He did not know how long garbage will be dumped at
Payatas.

The Payatas dump and another called Smokey Mountain have long symbolized
the Philippines' wrenching poverty. Scavengers, including young children,
search through the garbage for recyclable objects.

Survivors of the collapse have filed a $20 million class-action lawsuit
accusing the local government and private waste contractors of
negligence. (AP Online, November 9, 2000)


PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: 3 US Voters File Suit Seeking New Florida Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Florida voters filed a complaint calling for a new vote in Palm
Beach County, a court official said Thursday. CNN television reported
that a hearing on the suit would be held Thursday.

The class-action suit was filed on behalf of all voters in the county on
the grounds that their civil rights had been violated, since the somewhat
unclear format of the ballots led some of them to accidentally vote for
the wrong candidate. On the two-column ballot, Reform Party candidate Pat
Buchanan's name appeared to the right of Democrat Al Gore's, and his
check box appeared just above Gore's, making it a bit unclear to which
candidate each box corresponded.
One suit was filed late Wednesday by three local political activists, and
that was joined by a second complaint filed as a class action on behalf
of all voters in the county.

The plaintiffs claimed their civil rights were violated because the
ballot form was misleading and that the ballot design was in violation of
state law.

Among ballots disqualified in Florida were 19,000 in Palm Beach County,
because they were double-punched -- two presidential candidates were
chosen on a single ballot, Palm Beach County Court Judge and head of the
Canvassing Board Charles Burton said.

On the two-column ballot, Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan's name
appeared to the right of Democrat Al Gore's, and his check box appeared
just above Gore's, making it a bit unclear to which candidate each box
corresponded.

Meanwhile, on the streets outside the voting supervisor's office at the
county office building, a growing crowd of about 200 protestors on both
sides of the issue swells the streets. Civil rights leader Reverend Jesse
Jackson is scheduled to address them at noon (1700 GMT).

The statewide total count in Florida initially gave a 1,784 margin to
Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore after some six million
ballots were tallied. But because of the close margin, a recount was
mandated.

A victory in Florida would give either candidate the state's 25 electoral
votes, enough to capture the White House in the tightest US presidential
election in over a century. (Agence France Presse, November 9, 2000)


PRUCO LIFE: Private Action on Varying Insurance Fees Barred by Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no private right of action for excessive fees under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 and subsequent amendments, an Eastern
District judge ruled late last month.

Deciding a case of first impression in Olmsted v. Pruco Life Insurance
Co. of New Jersey, CV 00-1340, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis found that
Congress intended the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure that
fees and charges deducted under variable insurance contracts are
reasonable; it did not intend to create a right of action for private
plaintiffs.

Name plaintiffs Sidney and Johanna Olmsted filed a putative class action
alleging that Pruco and its parent company, The Prudential Insurance
Company of America, were charging excessive fees in violation of @@
80a-26(e) and 80a-27(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA).

Section 80a-26(e) states, in part, that it is unlawful "for any
registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts, or for
the sponsoring insurance company of such account, to sell any such
contract" unless the fees and charges "are reasonable in relation to the
services rendered, the expenses expected to be incurred, and the risks
assumed by the insurance company...."

Section 80a-27(i) forbids sponsoring insurance companies from selling
such contracts unless the contract is a redeemable security and the
company complies with @ 80a-26(e).

Noting that neither subsection expressly provides for a private right of
action, the insurance companies moved to dismiss the case before Judge
Garaufis.

The judge determined that this was the first time a federal court had
directly considered the issue and agreed that the ICA and amendments to
it embodied in Title II of the National Securities Markets Improvement
Act of 1996 do not allow suits by private parties.

"The Improvement Act and its legislative history are wholly devoid of
language creating a private right of action for a violation of its
amended ICA sections," Judge Garaufis said. "Instead, the Improvement
Act's legislative history clearly demonstrates that Congress' purpose was
to streamline and simplify regulation of investment companies to
eliminate unnecessary costs on those companies which otherwise would be
passed on to individual investors."

The act and the subsequent amendments, he said, make clear that the
Securities and Exchange Commission has the responsibility for insuring
compliance with the reasonable fee provisions.

"Section 80a-41 explicitly permits the SEC to investigate violations,
subpoena witnesses, promulgate rules, and bring civil actions in federal
court for injunctions or civil penalties," Judge Garaufis wrote.
"Congress specifically designated the SEC, a single and informed arbiter
knowledgeable of investment issues, to determine fee reasonableness in
order to streamline the regulation of, and establish continuity in, the
variable insurance fund market."

Allowing private parties to sue under the act, he said, would be contrary
to the goal of "achieving simple and flexible regulation."

"Compelling individual federal courts to intercede as additional
regulators of the 'reasonableness' of fees would instead complicate the
regulatory oversight of investment companies," he said. "It is thus
highly doubtful that Congress intended simultaneously to simplify
variable insurance regulation and to complicate it with potentially
redundant and extensive private actions brought in federal court."

Representing the plaintiffs were Paul D. Wexler, of Bragar Wexler Eagel &
Morgenstern, and Jeffrey H. Squire, of Kirby McInerey & Squire. Mark
Holland, James N. Benedict and Mary K. Dulka of Clifford Chance Rogers &
Wells represented Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey. (New York
Law Journal, October 31, 2000)


RITE AID: Reaches Agreement to Settle Consolidated Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE, PSE: RAD) announced on November 9 that it has
reached an agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action
lawsuits pending against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the derivative lawsuits pending
there and in the U.S. District Court for Delaware.

Charges in the suits relate primarily to certain accounting practices and
financial reporting under former management.

Under the agreement, which must be approved by the Courts, Rite Aid will
pay $45 million in cash, which will be fully funded by Rite Aid's
officers' and directors' liability insurance, and issue shares of Rite
Aid common stock in The shares will be valued over a 10-day trading
period in January 2002.

If the value determined is at least $7.75 per share, Rite Aid will issue
20 million shares. If the value determined is less than $7.75 per share,
Rite Aid has the option to deliver any combination of common stock, cash
and short-term notes, with a total value of $155 million.

As additional consideration for the settlement, Rite Aid will assign to
the plaintiffs all of its claims against three former Rite Aid
executives--Martin Grass, former chairman and chief executive officer;
Timothy Noonan, former president and chief operating officer; and Frank
Bergonzi, former chief financial officer--and all of its claims against
the Company's former outside auditors, KPMG, LLP.

The timing and manner of distribution of the settlement to members of the
class will be subject to a plan of distribution to be developed by
plaintiffs' counsel, subject to court approval. Questions concerning the
terms of the settlement should be directed to co-lead counsel for the
class: David Bershad (212-594-5300) and Sherrie Savett (215-875-3071)

Rite Aid Corporation tells investors it is one of the nation's leading
drugstore chains with annual revenues of more than $14 billion and
approximately 3,800 stores in 30 states and the District of Columbia.
Rite Aid owns approximately 15 percent of Advance Paradigm, Inc., the
nation's largest pharmacy benefits management and health improvement
company, and approximately 15 percent of drugstore.com, a leading online
source for health, beauty and pharmacy products.


RURAL METRO: 2 Lawsuits over Securities in 1998 Pending in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Metro Corp. Warren S. Rustand, the company’s former Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer, James H. Bolin, Vice Chairman of the
Board, and Robert E. Ramsey, Jr., Executive Vice President and Director,
have been named as defendants in two purported class action lawsuits:

* Haskell v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et. al., Civil Action No. C-328448
   filed on August 25, 1998 in Pima County, Arizona Superior Court and

* Ruble v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., CIV 98-413-TUC-JMR filed on
   September 2, 1998 in United States District Court for the District of
   Arizona.

The two lawsuits, which contain virtually identical allegations, were
brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased our publicly traded
securities including its common stock between April 28, 1997 and June 11,
1998. Haskell v. Rural/Metro seeks unspecified damages under the Arizona
Securities Act, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and under Arizona common
law fraud, and also seeks punitive damages, a constructive trust, and
other injunctive relief. Ruble v. Rural/ Metro seeks unspecified damages
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints in both actions allege that between April 28, 1997 and
June 11, 1998 the defendants issued certain false and misleading
statements regarding certain aspects of its financial status and that
these statements allegedly caused the company’s common stock to be traded
at artificially inflated prices. The complaints also allege that Mr.
Bolin and Mr. Ramsey sold stock during this period, allegedly taking
advantage of inside information that the stock prices were artificially
inflated. On May 25, 1999 the Arizona state court granted our request for
a stay of the Haskell action until the Ruble action is finally resolved.
The company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss the Ruble
action. This motion is currently pending.


SPECTRIAN CORP: Resolved Recently Securities Suits Filed 1997, ‘98 in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 23, 1997, a purported class action complaint, Russ Warye et
al v. Spectrian Corporation et al, Case No. C97-04672, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Spectrian and certain of its officers and directors. The
complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by making false and misleading statements about Spectrian's
business and prospects between July 17, 1997 through October 23, 1997.

On February 5, 1998, a virtually identical complaint, Bernstein et al v.
Spectrian Corp. et al, Case No. CV771849, was filed in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The state court
complaint alleged that Spectrian and certain of its officers and
directors violated California state securities and common law and was
based on the same allegations as the complaint filed in federal court.

A final settlement has been reached by the parties which encompasses both
the federal and state actions. Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, the federal court approved the settlement on
October 20, 2000 and dismissed the federal action. The Company
anticipates that the state action will be dismissed in the near future.
The terms of the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results from operations.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: P.M., R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard to Post Bond & Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Big Tobacco will appeal a Miami-Dade Circuit judges
decision to uphold a landmark $ 145 billion jury award in a class-action
suit filed on behalf of Florida smokers.

Judge Robert Kaye entered the final order late Monday affirming the
damage awarded last July by a jury in the so-called Engle case.

Attorneys for three of the defendants, Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds and
Lorillard Tobacco, said that they will post the $ 100 million bond
required by Florida law to prevent the execution of the judgment and go
forward with an appeal. Efforts to reach attorneys for Brown & Williamson
were unsuccessful by deadline.

Kayes 66-page ruling came on the heels of a Miami federal judges decision
that the case belonged in state court. Attorneys for Philip Morris, R.J.
Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard and the Liggett Group had asked
U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Beneges to review the punitive damage
award.

In his ruling Kaye noted that the trial, which took two years and which
generated more than 57,000 pages of testimony involved issues that were
highly complex and often novel, straining the ingenuity of the attorneys
and of the court.

The verdict breaks down like this: Class representative Mary Farnan will
recover $ 2.85 million, Frank Amodeo will recover $ 5.83 million, Ralph
Della Vecchia, whose wife died as a result of smoking, will get $ 1.5
million while his son will get $ 2 million and her estate will get $
523,000. The remaining money will go to the estimated 700,000 ailing
smokers and the survivors of those who died due to smoking. (Miami Daily
Business Review, November 8, 2000)


USDA: Hispanic farmers May Join Lawsuit over Availability of Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Hispanic farmers in southern New Mexico are considering joining a
class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Dona Ana County farmer G.A. Garcia and his sons, Lupe and Gilbert Garcia,
lost their family farm last year to government foreclosure, and filed
suit in October in federal court in Washington, D.C., over what they
allege was discriminatory treatment by the USDA.

The lawsuit, which lists three farm families as plaintiffs, was filed on
behalf of 20,000 Hispanic farmers and seeks $20 billion in damages. It
alleges USDA officials in California, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and
other states told the farmers that money for loans was not available when
it was. Loans that were granted were often insufficient or too late to
help, the lawsuit says.

The USDA settled last year with black farmers. A lawsuit filed on behalf
of American Indian producers is pending.

Two attorneys in the Hispanic case were in Las Cruces Wednesday to answer
questions from more than 20 farmers considering joining the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges a pattern of discrimination against Hispanic farmers
and failure to address their complaints, the attorneys said.

The lawyers allege Anglo farmers got loan money on time, but loans were
denied to Hispanic farmers or delayed until it was too late to raise
crops. Hispanics also allegedly had to put up more collateral or received
insufficient funds. The lawyers said complaints were ignored, thrown away
or made the subject of bogus investigations.

"The key to winning a court battle as a class is that you all complained
at some time to the USDA about discrimination," Washington attorney
Phillip Fraas said.

Gilbert A. Garcia Jr., grandson of G.A. Garcia, said the Garcia farm was
forced into bankruptcy after government farm programs denied help. Then,
he said, the family was unfairly denied further assistance because of
their poor financial condition.

"After 12 years, we ran out of money to fight it," he said.

The family's 600-acre farm, worth $2.5 million, was foreclosed on and
sold for $1.3 million in early 1999. (The Associated Press State & Local
Wire, November 9, 2000)


WAR VICTIMS: N. Koreans May Seek Individual Redress from Japan
--------------------------------------------------------------
An undisclosed number of North Koreans are interested in seeking
individual compensation from Japan for damages suffered under Japan's
1910-1945 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula, a U.S. lawyer said.

U.S. lawyer Barry Fisher, who was visiting Beijing, told Kyodo News he
met with such North Koreans recently but refused to elaborate further.

Fisher is among lawyers representing 15 women from South Korea and
elsewhere in Asia who filed a class-action suit in Washington on Sept.
18, demanding compensation and an apology from the Japanese government.

The 15 say they were forced to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese
military, a fate some historians say was shared by up to 200,000 women,
mostly from the Korean Peninsula.

In normalization talks with Japan, North Korea has been maintaining its
basic position of seeking compensation for past misdeeds by Japan, but is
apparently not allowing individual North Koreans to seek redress.

North Koreans ''definitely want to vindicate the rights of the people of
the entire Korean Peninsula,'' Fisher said. They are following cases
involving South Koreans, and ''have been active in the redress
movement,'' he said.

Fisher said he is ''exploring'' issues with the North Koreans but would
not say who he had met with.

Fisher also confirmed that the North Koreans are planning to participate
in a mock war crimes trial to take place in Tokyo this December,
referring to a mock trial to be staged to protest against the country's
alleged failure to confront its past war crimes.

The Japanese government claims that all wartime abuses were settled by
postwar treaties, and has refused to pay compensation to individual
victims.

In the last round of talks in August with Pyongyang, Tokyo offered to
extend economic cooperation to North Korea instead of compensation for
its colonial rule.

Fisher warned, however, that North Korea ''increasingly will be full
partners in the world community seeking the redress and final resolution
of these issues from the Japanese government.'' As for their chances,
''They are optimistic,'' he said. (Asian Political News, October 23,
2000)


WAR VICTIMS: U.S. Lawyer Sees Huge Awards From Japan To Chinese Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. lawyer Barry Fisher hopes a class action suit will force the
Japanese government to set aside billions of yen to compensate victims of
pre-1945 war crimes.

Fisher met with journalists Wednesday while in Beijing for ''strategy and
logistics consultations'' with Chinese victims, experts and lawyers who
are representing Chinese victims in Japanese court cases.

He is one of several lawyers who filed suit against the Japanese
government in Washington on the Sept. 18 anniversary of Japan's invasion
of China, seeking compensation for 15 Asian women who claim they were
forced to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese military before and during
World War II.

Fisher was also one of a dozen lawyers responsible for getting
governments and industry in Germany, Austria and Switzerland to set aside
billions of dollars to compensate victims of wartime atrocities. He hopes
he can get Japan to do the same.

The European deals have resolved ''finally and completely'' all claims
against the countries involved and, Fisher says, Japan cannot expect to
settle its ''burden of history'' until it makes a similar arrangement.

''The Japanese government and companies should learn from the Germans,
Austrians and Swiss and begin consideration of a joint fund...to resolve
all of these last remaining issues of the wartime period so the book can
be closed and Japan can move forward unencumbered by this history,'' he
said.

Although individuals had for years pursued civil claims in each country,
class action suits filed in the United States were what finally persuaded
the European governments to set up a fund for victims.

Germany signed an agreement in July that Fisher says ''solved all
outstanding issues from the Second World War'' at a cost of 10 billion
marks. A similar deal cost the Swiss $ 1.25 billion and a formal ceremony
in Vienna next Tuesday will cement an Austrian settlement for 6 billion
Austrian marks.

Japan, too, could ''resolve everything this way,'' Fisher says.

All the European cases began as ''individual claims against individual
companies,'' he said, but later evolved into ''multilateral
negotiations'' that in Germany and Austria resulted in the creation of
reconciliation funds.

Fisher is trying to push along discussions about how Japan might
similarly settle with its compensation-seekers.

There are currently more than 10 cases against Japan or Japanese entities
pending in the U.S. and three on behalf of people in China, Fisher said.

Since the Sept. 18 filing -- the first in a U.S. court against Japan on
behalf of so-called comfort women -- Fisher said ''people from a number
of other countries have contacted me (seeking to) join this case.''

Women from South Korea, China, the Philippines and Taiwan are already
involved in the case, and Fisher says he has since been approached by
representatives from Indonesia and North Korea.

Council for the plaintiffs will formally present the Japanese government
with the charges ''in a couple of days,'' Fisher said. He expects them to
respond by ''trying to evoke the doctrine of what is called sovereign
immunity.''

But that, he said, would be ''shameful and dishonorable,'' and is not
justified in defending ''outrageous acts that violate human rights and
constitute war crimes.''

A federal court in San Francisco dismissed a separate suit against Japan
filed on behalf of U.S. prisoners of war after the judge ruled the
U.S.-Japanese treaty of 1951 invalidated all future claims for damages.

Fisher said similar treaties exist between Japan and other countries
whose citizens are suing Japan, but these were ''open to
interpretation.'' He added the San Francisco ruling would likely be
appealed and has no bearing on the other cases.

There are also cases pending in Japan, but these ''have not been
successful,'' Fisher said. They are ''still alive, but barely.''

He said defendants in those cases had used ''technical'' arguments such
as the statute of limitations to ''avoid facing the issue.''

Germany, Austria and Switzerland, he said, had ''honestly looked the
problem in the eye and dealt with it in a final and complete way.'' The
settlements made in those countries ''will have no meaningful impact'' on
their economies, he said.

A resolution, he said, would also be ''in the interests of the government
and people of Japan and the companies that do business in (the U.S.).''
(Japan Policy & Politics, October 23, 2000)


ZILA INC: SEC Investigates on Alleged Trading on OraTest® NDA Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 8, 1999, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission") entered an order directing investigation entitled "In the
Matter of Zila, Inc." The Commission is investigating whether (i) there
were purchases or sales of securities of the Company by persons while in
possession of material non-public information concerning the prospects
that the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee for the FDA would recommend
approval of the OraTest(R) NDA and whether the FDA would subsequently
approve the NDA; (ii) such persons conveyed information regarding these
matters to other persons who effected transactions in securities of the
Company without disclosing the information; and (iii) there were false
and misleading statements in press releases, filings with the Commission,
or elsewhere concerning these matters.


ZILA INC: Securities Complaint in Arizona Proceeds to Trial in Feb 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company and certain officers of the Company have been named as
defendants in a consolidated First Amended Class Action Complaint filed
July 6, 1999 in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona under the caption In re Zila Securities Litigation, No. CIV 99
0115 PHX EHC. The First Amended Class Action Complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of
the Company's securities from November 14, 1996 through January 13, 1999
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, specifically, the
plaintiffs allege that in certain public statements and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the defendants made false or
misleading statements and concealed material adverse information related
to OraTest(R) that artificially inflated the price of the Company's
common stock in violation of the federal securities laws. The Company and
the individual defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and are
defending themselves vigorously. In September 2000, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint
and ordered that the matter proceed to trial on the issue of liability
commencing on February 26, 2001.


                             *********


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  * * *