/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/001120.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, November 20, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 226


AUTO FINANCING: TranSouth Agrees to Settle 1993 Suit by Used-Car Buyers
BRESEA RESOURCES: Settles Gold Mine Fraud Suit; Bre-X Links to Sever
BRE-X MINERALS: Ct Hears Geologist After Big Bucks, Calgary Sun Reports
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, FORD: Tire Pretrial to Begin in Indianapolis
CANKER PROGRAM: Citrus Tree Owner Sues Over Losses, Not for Vouchers

COCA-COLA: Faces Legal Hurdles For Settlement; More Suits Possible
COCA-COLA: Gives $ 50 Million To Its Education Foundation
COCA-COLA: Groups See Strong message in Settlement for Corporations
COCA-COLA: Journal Presents Excerpts of Court-Approved Settlement
COCA-COLA: Settlement Reached; Employees Ready To Move Into The Future

CONTINENTAL ALUMINIUM: dust-like emissions at Lyon site surpasses limits
CORAM HEALTHCARE: G. Martin Meyers Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
CREDIT CARDS: Visa ad MasterCard to Charge Wal-Mart of Destroying Papers
CUTTER BIOLOGICAL: La Ap Ct Affirms Dismissal Of Blood Product Verdict
HEARTLAND FUNDS: Kirby McInerney Names PricewaterhouseCoopers in Suit

KNIGHT TRADING: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
KNIGHT TRADING: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
MTA, ACCESS: Disabled Commuters' Suit in CA Demands Better Van Service
NGK METAL: PA Judge Remands Beryllium Case For Lack Of Jurisdiction
PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Approve Plan Of Liquidation

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FL Supreme Ct to Hear Arguments Monday Afternoon
WATER CONTAMINATION: Walkerton Hearing Set for  Jan 15 in Ontario Ct


AUTO FINANCING: TranSouth Agrees to Settle 1993 Suit by Used-Car Buyers
A finance company will pay $4 million to about 3,000 used-car customers it
was accused of swindling, ending one of the longest pending cases in
federal court in Norfolk.

TranSouth Financial Corp. has agreed to pay $1,350 to each customer, plus
nearly $2 million in lawyer fees, to settle a 1993 class-action lawsuit.

That is in addition to the $10.9 million settlement that dealer Charlie
Falk reached in his part of the case five years ago.

Lawyers accused Falk and TranSouth of cheating customers in a complex
financing scam. Charlie Falk's Auto Wholesale, the largest used-car dealer
in Hampton Roads, settled by forgiving $10.5 million in defaulted loans to
customers and paying $400,000 in damages.

A judge must approve the settlement before any payout. A hearing is
tentatively set for February.

One settlement condition is that no one involved can discuss details. But
financial terms are available in the public court record.

Kieron F. Quinn, the customers' lead attorney, said the parties are
satisfied with the settlement. He declined to comment further.

TranSouth's attorney Gregory N. Stillman said a number of terms have to be
ironed out. "We're about there. It's only a matter of days," he said.

The lawsuit never went to trial.

In August, Falk, TranSouth and the customers reached a financial
settlement. Some nonfinancial details are unresolved.

According to the lawsuit, Falk sold used cars at high prices and arranged
customer financing with TranSouth at interest rates of up to 36 percent.

When a customer missed a payment, TranSouth repossessed the car and mailed
the customer a default notice. The notice said the car would be sold at a
private sale unless the customer paid the amount due.

The cars were sold back to Falk at an artificially low price. Falk's
collection agency then would obtain a "deficiency judgment" in court
against the customer for the amount due over the artificially low sale
price, usually $2,000 to $5,000.

Falk then would resell the car at full price, starting the cycle again.
(The Associated Press State & Local Wire, November 17, 2000)

BRESEA RESOURCES: Settles Gold Mine Fraud Suit; Bre-X Links to Sever
Bresea Resources Ltd. has settled a class action suit launched in 1996
after an Indonesian gold mine was revealed as a fraud by its sister
company, Bre-X Minerals Ltd.

The agreement announced will see Calgary-based Bresea pay about $ 10
million to Bre-X bankruptcy trustee Deloitte & Touche, part of an overall
effort to see victims of the notorious gold mine fraud recover some of
their losses.

The settlement, which requires approval by courts in Alberta, Ontario and
Texas as well as by Bresea shareholders, would finally sever remaining
links between the firm and Bre-X and would allow Bresea to apply to the
Ontario Securities Commission to resume stock market trading of its shares.

Bresea has been in limbo since 1996 after Bre-X's Indonesian gold deposit
was revealed as a fraud.

Under the settlement, Bresea will transfer 49 million shares it still has
in Bre-X to Deloitte & Touche, while the eight million shares in Bresea
held by the Bre-X bankruptcy trustee will be returned to the firm.

Last year, Bresea had an estimated net value of about $ 30 million, which
included about $ 26 million in cash and a Calgary building worth about $ 3

In February, it was reported that former Bre-X chief executive David Walsh
donated $ 18.7 million worth of shares in Bresea to a private foundation
set up by Walsh and his sons, Sean and Brett. The Walsh Foundation would
have yielded about $ 9.3 million in tax credits to Bre-X, according to
reports published earlier this year. (The Edmonton Sun, November 17, 2000)

BRE-X MINERALS: Ct Hears Geologist After Big Bucks, Calgary Sun Reports
When Bre-X boss David Walsh approached John Felderhof about exploring for
mining prospects in Indonesia, the geologist replied: "I need to make some
big bucks and hold on to it," court heard. "And the evidence will show that
Mr. Felderhof most certainly pursued this objective," Crown attorney Jay
Naster said in the second day of his opening statement.

Felderhof sold tens of millions of dollars worth of company stock knowing
the company never secured title to the Busang mines in Indonesia, Naster
said. Felderhof sold 3.6-million shares for about $ 84 million seven months
before the world's largest gold find was exposed as a hoax in March 1997.

Felderhof, who is not attending the trial, has pleaded not guilty to eight
securities violations alleging insider trading when he sold his stock.

Bre-X blossomed from a penny stock worth 30 cents on April Fool's Day 1993
to $ 184 a share by 1996.

Felderhof is also implicated in the release of four misleading press
statements. Each heralded findings of gold ranging from 39.15 million
ounces in June 1996 to 70.95 million ounces in February of 1997.

Meanwhile, Bre-X's sister company, Bresea Resources Ltd., has settled a
class-action suit. The agreement, announced on November 16, will see
Calgary-based Bresea pay about $ 10 million to Bre-X bankruptcy trustee
Deloitte & Touche, part of an overall effort to see victims of the
notorious gold mine fraud recover some of their losses.

"This is an important day in the continuing pursuit of those who allegedly
perpetrated fraud against people who invested in Bre-X," Harvey Strosberg,
lawyer for the Ontario-based class action, said ina statement. (The Calgary
Sun, November 17, 2000)

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, FORD: Tire Pretrial to Begin in Indianapolis
Even before scores of Firestone tire lawsuits landed on her bench, U.S.
District Judge Sarah Evans Barker had proved she was no pushover.

The 57-year-old judge, a 1984 appointee of former President Ronald Reagan,
recently ordered U.S. marshals to seize, by force if necessary, the
Indianapolis Baptist Temple because its minister had refused to withhold
Social Security and federal taxes from employees for more than a decade.

She also blocked a six-ton tribute to the Ten Commandments from being
erected this month on the lawn of Indiana's statehouse. And she threatened
Lawrence County officials with contempt when they put the seven-foot
limestone monument on a county courthouse lawn instead.

But Barker's biggest test could come, when the scores of lawyers who are
suing Ford Motor Co. and Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. converge in her
Indianapolis courtroom for the first pretrial hearing involving hundreds of
Firestone tire-related lawsuits.

The hearing and another scheduled for Dec. 6 will lay the groundwork for
how pre-trial discovery and motions will be handled and, ultimately, how
quickly the cases will be returned to their home courts for trial or for
settlement. "You'll have a hundred lawyers -- think of herding cats -- and
they'll all want to go their own direction at different times and different
speeds," said Jon Krahulik, an Indianapolis lawyer and a former Indiana
Supreme Court justice who knows Barker.

"But she'll do a very good job of herding them," he said. "She has a
marvelous sense of humor and the ability to get things done, and she won't
yell and scream. She'll keep her balance."

It was Barker's "ability and temperament to steer this complex litigation
on a steady and expeditious course" that John Nangle, chairman of the
federal Multidistrict Litigation Panel, cited in his Oct. 24 ruling that
transferred federal lawsuits against Firestone to her court.

The judicial panel consolidated with Barker 60 personal injury lawsuits and
class actions after Bridgestone recalled 14.4 million ATX, ATX II and
Wilderness AT tires. Only 6.5 million of those were believed to be still on
the road when the recall was announced on Aug. 9.

Most of the recalled tires were original equipment on Ford's popular
Explorer sport-utility vehicle. Firestone tires have been linked to 119
deaths in the United States and 50 more in Venezuela, the majority of them
occurring after Explorer tires failed and the vehicles flipped over.

The personal injury lawsuits seek millions of dollars in damages for those
injured or killed. The class actions seek to represent millions of
Firestone tire owners by expanding the recall to models and sizes not now
covered. Others seek remuneration for Explorer owners whose vehicles lost
value after the recall.

With so much at stake, Ford and Firestone officials have praised Barker's
appointment. But some plaintiff lawyers say she is no friend to them.

Plaintiff lawyers cite Barker's decision to slash a $ 1.5-million jury
award in a ruling that almost a decade later still rankles some. Barker
awarded just $ 78,000 -- enough to cover legal expenses -- to Fred Sanders,
a parochial school teacher who sued police because he said he was severely
beaten after officers broke into his home to investigate a barking dog

Sanders shot and killed a police officer, which Doug Shortridge, Sanders'
lawyer, told the jury was a justified act of self-defense.

"I will never appear in her court again," Shortridge said. "I was
incredibly frustrated. I had won the case fair and square and I didn't
understand her ruling."

Barker declined requests to be interviewed by the Free Press, but lawyers
who know her defend her. "I'd agree she's no friend of plaintiffs' lawyers,
but she's really not a friend of the defense bar either," said Krahulik.
"She's a judge that calls them the way she sees them."

Lawyers who are ill prepared or are not quick to get their point across
have reason to fear Barker, others say. She is known to sharply reprimand
or curtly cut off lawyers and to push parties to settle cases rather than
go to trial.

"She runs a very tight ship and is very formal, which I think is a plus in
very complex matters like this," said Bill Marsh, an Indiana federal
defender. "Some judges allow you to banter back and forth, but she doesn't
allow that. And once she rules, that's it."

But Barker has compassion and patience for clients accused of crimes, he
said. "She doesn't always see the world the same way I do, but in terms of
sentencing she is fair and compassionate, and she follows the law," Marsh
said. "She searches hard to find the right solutions . . . and she
understands our clients better than some other judges do."

Born and raised in Mishawaka, Ind., Barker graduated from American Law
School in Washington, D.C., where she served as director of research and
scheduling for Sen. Charles Percy's re-election campaign.

In 1984, when Reagan appointed her to be the first female federal judge in
Indiana, she had served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
Indiana for three years. She is married to Ken Barker, also a lawyer. They
have three children. (Detroit Free Press, Detroit Free Press, November 17,

CANKER PROGRAM: Citrus Tree Owner Sues Over Losses, Not for Vouchers
A Fort Lauderdale man who lost seven citrus trees to the state's canker
eradication program filed suit on behalf of everyone whose trees were cut
down in the fight against the disease.

Timothy Farley is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, filed in
Broward County Circuit Court. Farley said the state's offer of $ 100
Wal-Mart vouchers to each household isn't enough.

"It's not fair they give us $ 100 each," he said. "That's like $ 16 a tree.
That's a joke. I used to get fruit off those trees October through April.
It was a total assault."

The lawsuit, drafted by attorney Ellis Rubin, names as defendants the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, as well as
Agriculture Commissioner Bob Crawford. The suit seeks "full and just
compensation" for the trees.

Liz Compton, spokeswoman for the department, said she could not comment on
a lawsuit that no one in the department had seen as yet.

"We feel that the science upholds what we're doing, and we are working on
making improvements to the program," she said.

Under the law, the state is not allowed to compensate owners for the
destruction of trees that either have the disease or have been exposed to
it. Such trees are considered worthless under state law, Compton said.

But Farley said this is nonsense because canker doesn't kill trees or
prevent them from bearing perfectly edible fruit.

"Citrus canker hasn't killed one tree, ever," he said. "Their chain saws
have. They still provide shade. They still provide fruit. You can eat the
fruit from a tree with canker."

The state has cut down about 550,000 trees in Miami-Dade County and about
125,000 trees in Broward County.

In a separate lawsuit, a judge this morning is expected to announce his
decision on whether the canker program can proceed or not in Broward
County. That lawsuit was filed by several tree owners and local
governments. (Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), November 17, 2000)

COCA-COLA: Faces Legal Hurdles For Settlement; More Suits Possible
Will the Coke settlement stick?

That's the burning question that probably won't be answered for a few more
months as some 2,000 current and former Coca-Cola employees covered by the
agreement ponder their choices.

The $ 192.5 million settlement now must make its way through several more
legal hurdles. First, U.S. District Judge Richard Story must give
preliminary approval to the pact, which could happen in a week or two.

At the same time, he will approve the details of a notice to class members
that spells out what their rights are.

Essentially, class members can accept the settlement, which will vary from
person to person according to a specific formula that has not been
announced. The average amount is estimated at $ 40,000.

Or they can "opt out" and file an individual suit for damages against the

"I would expect almost everyone to opt in," said plaintiffs' attorney James
Voyles. "This settlement is historic. I don't think we will see a
settlement this good for years and years."

If the overwhelming majority of employees accept the deal, then Coca-Cola
can begin to move beyond the negative publicity and begin to restore its

"Let's begin today to put this lawsuit behind us and concentrate all of our
energies on shaping our future," Chairman Doug Daft told employees in an e-

But if a sizable percentage decide to file new suits, a cloud could linger
over the company for some time.

Waiting in the wings is prominent Florida attorney Willie Gary. He already
represents at least eight current and former Coke workers --- four involved
in the class-action suit and another four who filed a separate
discrimination suit in June. Attorney Johnnie Cochran also is involved in
the latter suit.

"I think we are very disappointed by this figure. We are frankly shocked,"
said Tricia "C.K." Hoffler, a partner in Willie Gary's firm. "If there are
people who feel this will bring closure to the tremendous pain they have
felt at the hands of Coca-Cola, then we wish them well," said Hoffler. But
if members of the class opt out, she added, they're "fair game."

She predicted that "Coca-Cola will probably see us in court." She said the
firm received calls from an undisclosed number of probable class members
"who have been disappointed" by the details of the settlement announced.

Others praised the terms, while their colleagues said it's too early to
call it a show-stopper for the rival lawsuit.

"I am confident that some people are going to opt out," said Larry Jones, a
former Coke manager who started a boycott to pressure the company to settle
the lawsuit.

But Jones, who founded a group called the Committee for Corporate Justice,
also praised parts of the settlement, such as the creation of a
seven-person task force to monitor and enforce racially neutral employment
policies at Coca-Cola.

"I'd like to put my name in the hat for one of the committee members," he
joked, but then added, "You know Coca-Cola. Monitoring is a stretch. ...
It's hard to trust Coca-Cola to do the right thing."

Jones said he had no idea how many of his fellow class members in the
lawsuit will opt to take part in the settlement. It's certain that
Coca-Cola will remain mired in racial discrimination lawsuits for some time
to come, predicted Joe Beasley, director of Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's
Southern region.

But he added that the certainty offered by the settlement terms could have
a powerful effect.

"Now that the numbers have been announced," Beasley said, "some people hold
out the notion that one in the hand is better than two in the bush."

The following is a breakdown of Coca-Cola's $ 192.5 million settlement and
some of the initiatives the company will undertake to prevent
discriminatory employment practices:

Compensatory Damages Fund:

To cover . ............ $ 58.7 million emotional distress
Back Pay Fund: Includes cash and/or  $ 23.7 million options stock
Promotional Achievement Award Fund: 10 million For black employees
                                            promoted over the next 10
Pay equity adjustments: To eliminate $ 43. 5 million non-job-related pay
                             disparities between black and white workers.

Programmatic reforms:
To institute programs $ 36 million that ensure fair treatment of workers.

Attorneys fees    $ 20.6 million
Total cash settlement $ 192. 5 million


   * Commitment to "gold standard" on diversity Board to oversee equal
      opportunity performance
   *  Outside task force to oversee diversity efforts
   *  Full review of human resources policies
   *  Ombudsperson to monitor complaints
   *  Task force to monitor company progress
   *  Execs' pay to be tied to diversity efforts
   *  Employee access to meaningful mentoring
   *  Mandatory diversity training at least annually

                               WHO'S COVERED

The settlement considers the following current and former Coca-Cola Co.
employees to be covered:

    -- All African-Americans employed by the company in salaried exempt and
non-exempt positions in the United States at any time from April 22, 1995,
to June 14, 2000, including, but not limited to, current or former salaried
employees of the Corporate Office, Coca-Cola USA and Minute Maid.

    -- Hourly employees whose pay rate is specified on an hourly rather
than an annual basis (e.g. manufacturing employees) are not within the
defined class.

Neither are employees of bottlers such as Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. (The
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, November 17, 2000)

COCA-COLA: Gives $ 50 Million To Its Education Foundation
Amid the flurry of action surrounding the announced settlement of a racial
discrimination lawsuit against the company, Coca-Cola revealed it is giving
$ 50 million to the Coca-Cola Foundation to continue its support of a broad
range of community programs.

Focused on education, the foundation supports a variety of initiatives that
encourage children to stay in school, train disadvantaged youths and
promote higher education among high school students.

Together with the settlement of the class-action lawsuit, the company said
it would take a one-time charge of $ 188 million in the fourth quarter.
(The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, November 17, 2000)

COCA-COLA: Groups See Strong message in Settlement for Corporations
Civil rights leaders welcomed Coca-Cola's agreement to spend $ 192.5
million on employment monitoring and cash awards to settle a racial
discrimination lawsuit.

They praised the landmark settlement's measures to encourage fairer pay and
promotion opportunities, and said it is a signal to other corporations to
create similar mechanisms.

"What the litigation has proven is that racial discrimination is very
expensive," said Joseph Lowery, the former head of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference. "And the message is clear to corporations, it seems
to me, that it's better to pay for justice now than to pay for compensatory
damages later."

"I think that (Coca-Cola President) Jack Stahl and (Executive Vice
President) Carl Ware are due congratualtions, and the workers are too
because they stood up and took the risk," said the Rev. Jesse Jackson, head
of Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

"I'm particularly impressed with the internal mechanisms to change Coke's
culture," he added.

The settlement detailed in a press conference includes a seven- member
independent task force with court-backed authority to investigate
discrimination claims. The task force will be able to recommend changes in
the company's human resources policies that are binding on Coca-Cola unless
it secures relief from the court, plaintiffs' attorneys said.

The settlement also calls for an independent ombudsman reporting to
Coca-Cola's chief executive officer, mentoring programs and executive
compensation tied to meeting equal employment opportunity goals.

Without such mechanisms to change Coca-Cola's "toxic culture," said
Jackson, the monetary awards totaling more than $ 100 million are like
temporary medicine for a toothache.

"If you just put out more money but don't change the culture ... it's just
a matter of time before it wears off," he said.

The Coca-Cola settlement won't short-circuit a $ 1.5 billion racial
discrimination suit filed against the company by attorneys Willie Gary and
Johnnie Cochran, he added.

"It's not enough. They're going to have to pay out some more," Jackson
said. "I think it's the right step. I think it's a landmark decision.
...But I do not think Coke can go past this other lawsuit."

Since it was filed in April 1999, the employee racial discrimination
lawsuit against Coca-Cola has had many twists and turns. Some major events:

    -- April 22, 1999: Four current and former black employees file a
lawsuit against Coca-Cola, accusing it of discrimination in pay, promotions
and performance evaluations. The plaintiffs seek class-action status. Coke
denies the allegations.

    -- May 26: Chairman M. Douglas Ivester announces formation of a
Diversity Advisory Council.

    -- Dec. 21: More plaintiffs are added to the lawsuit, including several
from Minute Maid, a Coca-Cola subsidiary. Also during December, Ivester
announces his early retirement weeks after restructuring top management.
Doug Daft is targeted as his eventual successor.

    -- 2000 Jan 25: Daft, president and chief operating officer, announces
the company will cut 6,000 jobs, including 2,500 in metro Atlanta, in a
major restructuring. The eventual number of job cuts is about 5,200.

    -- Feb. 17: Daft is elevated to chairman and chief executive officer.

    -- March 4: Larry Jones, a former human resources manager who was laid
off, launches a drive to demand fairer treatment of black workers, and
eventually organizes a bus "Ride for Corporate Justice" April 15- 19 to the
company's shareholders meeting in Delaware.

    -- April 19: The Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. urges Coca-Cola to settle the
racial discrimination lawsuit at the shareholders meeting.

    -- May 16: Coca-Cola commits $ 1 billion over five years to promote
business opportunities for minorities and women, but denies the effort is a
response to the racial discrimination suit.

    -- June 14: Coca-Cola reaches agreement in principle to settle with the
plaintiffs. On the same day, Florida lawyer Willie Gary (left) and Johnnie
Cochran (right) file another discrimination lawsuit on behalf of four
additional plaintiffs, alleging Coke management created a hostile and
discriminatory work environment for them. Coke denies the allegations.

    -- Oct. 11: Daft instructs employees nationwide to attend an annual
diversity training course.

    -- Nov. 16: Coca-Cola and plaintiffs in the original case announce
details of the settlement, including spending $ 192.5 million to compensate
2,000 African- American workers and establish programs to foster fair
employment practices. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, November 17,

COCA-COLA: Journal Presents Excerpts of Court-Approved Settlement
Excerpts from the court-approved "Summary of Settlement Agreement" in
Abdallah, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Co.

The Settlement Agreement covers all African-American persons employed by
Coca-Cola in salaried (exempt or non-exempt) positions in the United States
at any time from April 22, 1995, to June 14, 2000.

                     DETAILS ON MONETARY RELIEF

    Coca-Cola has agreed to a total cash settlement of approximately $ 113

(This excludes the value of future pay equity adjustments and programmatic
relief.) The current cash portion of this sum to be distributed to the
Class is approximately $ 82.4 million and is comprised of the Compensatory
Damages Fund and the Back Pay Fund. If the Settlement is approved, the
monies in these funds will be distributed to class members as soon as
possible. In addition, the Company will establish a Promotional Achievement
Fund of $ 10 million, from which qualified current African- American
employees may receive future awards over a period of up to 10 years.
Finally, subject to Court review and approval, the Settlement Agreement
also provides for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to
settlement class counsel. The cash portion is before any deductions for
Settlement Class members electing to opt out of the Settlement. Although
they affect the total, opt-outs will not diminish the amount any individual
Class member would recover under the Settlement.

    Compensatory Damages Fund of $ 58.7 million

This fund will resolve any Settlement Class members' claims for emotional
distress, hostile environment, non-wage-related disparate treatment, and
the like. The Compensatory Damages Fund will be distributed based on total
time employed at Coca-Cola. Each class member will receive something from
this fund. Settlement Class members may choose to take some or all of their
share of this fund in restricted Coca-Cola common stock instead of cash.

    Back Pay Fund of $ 23.7 million

On Nov. 15, 2000, the mediation parties learned that an agreed-upon Panel
of Experts had determined the dollar amount required to make the Settlement
Class whole for compensation and promotion racial disparities as compared
to white employees, to the extent permitted by applicable law and in
accordance with statistical tests accepted by most courts. Out of this Back
Pay Fund, some portion will be awarded in the form of stock options to
stock option eligible Settlement Class members receiving less than their
appropriate share of this form of compensation. The Panel arrived at these
figures after receiving expert reports and live testimony from the labor
economists for both mediation parties.

The forthcoming Settlement Class Notice will set forth factors to be used
in distributing the Back Pay Fund. The mediation parties are unaware of a
similar "make-whole" back pay fund in any other class settlement.

    Promotional Achievement Award Fund of $ 10 million

The Settlement Agreement establishes a fund to reward African-American
employees who are promoted over the next 10 years into positions where
African-Americans are deemed to have been underrepresented or
underutilized. The distribution of Promotional Achievement Awards will be
subject to review and recommendation by the Task Force and the Joint

    Attorneys' Fees

Subject to Court approval, Class Counsel will receive an award of
approximately $ 20.6 million plus expenses, including the cost of expert
fees and expenses.

    "Most Favored Nations" Clause

The Company has agreed that if it settles on more favorable monetary terms
with ten or more Settlement Class members who have opted out of this
Settlement between now and June 13, 2001, it will make up any difference in
damages (as opposed to back pay) to bring the average Class member up to
the average received in the other settlements.

On top of the total cash settlement of approximately $ 113 million,
Coca-Cola has agreed to make salary equity adjustments that Settlement
Class counsel's expert values at approximately $ 43.5 million over the next
10 years. Other features of the monetary relief secured by this Settlement
Agreement are a promotional claims procedure that can be pursued by Class
members in lieu of a back pay award, and compensation for persons who
executed affidavits in support of the Settlement Class. Subject to the
approval of the Court, the Agreement also provides for incentive
compensation for the four Settlement Class Representatives.

    Pay Equity Adjustments

Coca-Cola has agreed to make appropriate pay equity adjustments to
eliminate non-job-related pay disparities between African- American and
white employees. Such adjustments are valued by Settlement Class counsel's
expert at approximately $ 43.5 million over 10 years. The implementation of
these pay equity adjustments will be subject to review and recommendation
by the Task Force and the Joint Experts.

    Promotional Claims Procedure

Any Class member may forgo his or her award from the Back Pay Fund and
instead obtain an individual promotional claims hearing before a U.S.
Magistrate Judge. At this hearing, the Class member may seek to obtain a
promotion to a specific position that he or she claims was discriminatorily
denied and/or seek to be "made whole" for monetary losses which the Class
member can prove are the result of a specific discriminatory promotion
decision. The Class member bears the burden of proof, and Coca-Cola may
raise any defense. Class members who choose this promotional claims option
in lieu of a back pay award do not opt out of the Settlement and may still
receive their share of the Compensatory Damages Fund.

    Compensation of Affiants

Each person who provided an executed affidavit to Class Counsel by June 14,
2000, in support of the claims of the Settlement Class is entitled to
receive a gross sum of $ 3,000 for their assistance in prosecuting this
action, in addition to any other monetary benefits the affiant receives
from the Settlement. Affiant compensation will come out of the Compensatory
Damages Fund. The Parties have established procedures to protect the
identity of affiants.

    Compensation of Settlement Class Representatives

Elvenyia Barton-Gibson,  George H. Eddings, Linda Ingram and Kimberly Gray
Orton (the Representatives of the Settlement Class) together will apply to
the Court for an award of not more than $ 1.2 million total to be divided
among the four of them for their individual claims, Class claims and their
service to the Settlement Class.

    Notice and Right to Opt Out

The Court expects that a Court-approved written Notice to the Settlement
Class will be mailed out in December 2000. Class members need not take any
action to protect their rights before receiving the Notice. The Notice will
set forth the rights and obligations of all class members, including the
right to "opt out" of the monetary benefits of the Settlement Agreement.

Class members may give up their right to a share of the monetary relief
provided by this Agreement by opting out of the Settlement under the terms
set forth in the Notice. Class members who opt out of the Settlement may
not benefit from the Compensatory Damages Fund, the Back Pay Fund, the
Promotional Achievement Award Fund or the Promotional Claims Procedure
described above. Further, it is the position of The Coca-Cola Company that
any class member who accepted an enhanced severance package has already
waived his or her right to bring an individual legal action against

Any money from the Compensatory Damages Fund or the Back Pay Fund that
would have gone to a member of the Settlement Class who has chosen to opt
out of the Settlement will be credited to Coca-Cola.


    Statement of Principle: The programmatic remedies secured by the
Settlement Agreement grow out of the following Statement of Principle or
"gold standard" that defines the core objectives of the Agreement:

The Coca-Cola Company commits to excel among Fortune 500 Companies in
promoting and fostering equal opportunity in compensation, promotion and
career advancement for all employees in all levels and areas of the
business, regardless of race, color, gender, religion, age, national
origin, or disability, and to promote and foster an environment of
inclusion, respect, and freedom from retaliation. The Company recognizes
that diversity is a fundamental and indispensable value and that the
Company, its shareholders and all of its employees will benefit by striving
to be a premier "gold standard" company on diversity. The Company will set
measurable and lawful business goals to achieve these objectives during the
next four years.

    Board of Directors' Role: The Settlement Agreement requires Coca-Colais
Board of Directors to review and remain informed about the Company's
progress toward achieving diversity goals and to establish a schedule for
receiving formal reports from the Board's Public Issues and Diversity
Review Committee from the Task Force and from Human Resources.

The Settlement Agreement requires this Committee to provide briefings to
the Committee on Directors in connection with that committeeis routine
process of selecting candidates for the Board of Directors.

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors will consider the
Companyis EEO performance in determining whether or not Company officers
have met their business objectives. Further, the Public Issues and
Diversity Review Committee will provide input into the process by which
elected officers are compensated.

    Task force specifics powers and duties: The Settlement Agreement
establishes a Task Force to ensure fair, equitable and effective
implementation of the Agreement and to provide independent oversight of the
Company's diversity efforts and compliance with the Statement of Principle.
The Task Force has meaningful and substantial powers to review, oversee and
monitor all existing Coca-Cola United States employment and human resources
policies, practices and procedures, as well as the effectiveness of the
programmatic provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Task Force has
independent investigatory authority. The Task Force will evaluate and
monitor the effectiveness of all of the programmatic relief implemented by

Coca-Cola will implement Task Force recommendations unless the Company
seeks and obtains judicial relief. To obtain judicial relief, Coca-Cola
must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Task Force
recommendation, in whole or in part, involves the application of unsound
business judgment, is technically not feasible, or is not cost-effective.
The Task Force may use counsel, including Class Counsel, if the Company
seeks judicial involvement to resist a Task Force recommendation.

The Task Force will have access to all non-privileged and relevant books,
data, documents and other sources of information, and may communicate
directly with any Coca-Cola officer or employee directly or through
anonymous surveys, focus groups and other appropriate forms of

The Task Force will have oversight of the distribution of money out of the
Promotional Achievement Award Fund, and oversight of the funds spent by
Coca- Cola under the Agreement on pay equity adjustments.

    Commitment to a "gold standard." Coca-Cola will commit to excel among
Fortune 500 companies by becoming a premier "gold standard" company on

Responsibilities of the Board of Directors

Coca-Cola's Board of Directors, through a Public Issues and Diversity
Review Committee, will perform oversight of Coca-Cola's overall EEO
performance. This Board Committee will also provide input into the process
by which elected officers are compensated; and will brief the Board's
Committee on Directors in connection with its regular process of selecting
candidates for Board seats.

An independent Task Force

An outside, seven-member Task Force will be created with a mandate to
ensure compliance with the Settlement Agreement and to provide independent
oversight of the Company's diversity efforts. The Coca- Cola Task Force
shall have independent investigative, reporting and monitoring powers over
all pertinent human resource practices. Task Force recommendations will be
binding on Coca-Cola, unless the Company successfully petitions the Court
for relief. The Settlement Agreement requires the Company, under Task Force
oversight, to conduct a broad-based review of its human resource practices
and, where necessary, to modify them in order to achieve the objectives of
the Settlement Agreement. The Task Force will produce annual reports on
Coca-Cola's compliance with the Settlement Agreement, to be posted on the
Company's Web site.

Review by Joint Experts

The parties have selected two well-qualified and independent industrial
psychologists (the "Joint Experts") to perform a full review of Coca-Cola's
human resource policies and practices and to prepare a Joint Expert Report
and Recommendation to the Task Force.

An Independent Ombudsperson

With input from the Plaintiffs, Coca-Cola will hire an Ombudsperson,
reporting to the CEO, who will address internal reports of discrimination
and retaliation and independently monitor the handling of complaints by
Human Resources.


The Task Force will ensure that Coca-Cola regularly monitors and reports on
the progress of African-American employees with respect to promotions,
compensation, performance evaluations and terminations, on a companywide
and business-unit basis. These reports will go to the Board of Directors,
among others.

EEO Performance

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors will consider the
status of the Company's EEO performance in determining whether officers
have met their business objectives. Moreover, the Task Force will ensure
that Coca-Cola bases an appropriate proportion of managerial incentive
compensation on EEO performance. The Task Force will report annually to
employees, management and the Board of Directors on the Company's EEO

Limitations on managerial discretion

The Task Force will ensure that Coca- Cola establishes effective internal
oversight of individual managerial decisions on promotions, compensation
and performance evaluations, to ensure the elimination of unlawful bias and
excessive subjectivity in decision making. Further, the Task Force will
ensure that the Company establishes procedures to appeal managerial
determinations regarding promotions, compensation and performance.

Meaningful mentoring

The Task Force will ensure that employees have access to meaningful
mentoring and professional opportunities.

Proper EEO compliance

The Task Force will ensure that Coca-Cola properly develops its Affirmative
Action Plans under Executive Order 11246.

Diversity training

The Task Force will ensure that Coca-Cola conducts mandatory diversity
training at least annually for managers and biannually for all other


    TEXACO INC. Filed in March 1994 and settled in March 1997; Texaco
agreed to pay $ 176.1 million. Financial breakdown: $ 115 million in cash
payments, including attorneys fees; $ 35 million on program changes; $ 26.1
million in pay increases over a five-year period. The settlement was
divided among 1,400 class members. Program changes: Creation of an
independent task force overseeing reforms of key human resources practices;
linking management compensation with diversity performance; diversity
education and incentives; minimizing fear of retaliation; employment and
compensation monitoring.

    SHONEY'S INC. Filed in April 1989 and settled in January 1993; Shoney's
agreed to pay out $ 132.5 million. Financial breakdown: $ 105 million paid
to 20,909 class members, using a formula based on number of discriminatory
actions against an individual and whether class member was applicant or
employee. Average payout was $ 4,850 for 18,565 employees and $ 4,300 for
2,344 applicants. Program changes: Hiring and promotion goals for all
positions in restaurants and corporate offices; hiring a compliance
official; adhering to equal employment opportunity practices by managers.

    WINN-DIXIE STORES INC. Filed in October 1996 and settled in July 1999;
Winn-Dixie agreed to pay out $ 28.1 million. Financial breakdown: 35,000
class members: $ 2 million to former employees in company store purchase
cards, $ 4 million to current employees in company store debit cards and $
7 million in seniority-based formula payments; $ 11 million to female/black
employees as promotion incentive payments; $ 4 million administrative
expenses; $ 120,000 to individual plaintiffs plus any cash award
entitlements. Program changes: Compliance official; post policies
prohibiting discrimination, publish disciplinary policies, make available
orientation video and summary leaflet; internal complaint procedure;
management/human resources personnel for training and evaluation; modify
job request and job posting procedures; goals that afford promotion of
females and African-Americans; diversity incentives for district managers;
mandatory record keeping subject to review by Class Counsel; progress

    CSX TRANSPORTATION Filed in March 1994 and settled in January 1999; CSX
agreed to pay $ 25 million. Financial breakdown: Paid to 12 plaintiffs, two
unions, and current and former black employees of CSX since June 1991; $
18.5 million to 1,600 class members, with larger individual awards going to
named plaintiffs and the remainder for legal/administrative costs. Average
of $ 11,500 per class member. Program changes: Post and enforce EEOC rights
poster and CSX nondiscrimination policies; tuition reimbursement;
supervisor/manager/training on equal employment opportunity; guidelines for
training/promotion and transfers across departments; compliance
official/internal complaint procedure; notice to employees regarding
non-contract positions.

    BOEING CO. Filed in 1998 and resolved in September 1999; Boeing settled
for $ 15 million. Financial breakdown: $ 3.7 million to 264 named
plaintiffs and other specifically identified class members, capped at $
50,000 each for named plaintiffs and $ 15,000 for others (mean award was $
14,280); $ 3.5 million among approximately 3,400 members of settlement
class, average of $ 900 per class member; $ 3.6 million to implement
program improvements. Program changes: Programs to provide more information
regarding promotion availability, promotion requirements and reasons for
non-promotion; revise first-level management selection process and
guidelines; equal employment opportunity diversity training; new internal
complaint procedure; consultant to review/assess changes implemented by the
company. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, November 17, 2000)

COCA-COLA: Settlement Reached; Employees Ready To Move Into The Future
It's done. Now let's move on.

That appeared to be the prevailing feeling among some Coca-Cola employees
as they learned of the settlement inked between the company and its black

"I feel we can't completely go forward as a company until we work this out
and put it behind us. It's good that they are," said a marketing manager
who has worked at Coke for over five years. "When you are trying to market
your product you don't want to have a backlash."

While the suit hadn't been a major topic of conversation at the company
over the last few months, it had been another reminder of the company's
troubles and it's unclear what the aftermath will be in the wake of the
settlement, the largest of its kind.

Coca-Cola employees, for the most part, were tight-lipped about the
settlement, adhering to the long-standing unwritten rule that has marked
the company as exclusive. Many declined to talk.

Betty Nichols, an African-American staffer, was happy to hear that an
agreement had been reached.

"I'm glad it's over with," she said. Nichols, who did not join the lawsuit,
works in a Midtown office building where Coke houses part of its fountain

Barbara Brewster, a 22-year Coke veteran who took a retirement package
earlier this year, was part of the class-action lawsuit. Although she
expected the amount to be higher, Brewster, who works at an accounting firm
in Atlanta, called the settlement "a big victory."

She said was pleased Coke agreed to form an independent committee to
oversee the company's employment practices. "That's great, and it's way
overdue," she said.

Brewster, who left Coke in late April, said the lawsuit didn't seem to
cause much division while she was there. However, "There was some tension,
especially with the plaintiffs that were still there," she said.

Nichols, the fountain operations employee, said she hasn't noticed any
unusual tension because of the lawsuit. And black and white workers
interviewed said morale had not suffered prior to the announcement of the

Bari-Ellen Roberts, the former Texaco worker who led the suit against the
oil giant, was doubtful that the Coke settlement would make other large
companies examine their own employee ranks for discrimination issues.

"I would have thought that at least Fortune 500 companies would have
learned from Texaco," Roberts said. "To see almost five years after Texaco
a major company like Coke in the same position is sad. There's a sadness
about it." (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, November 17, 2000)

CONTINENTAL ALUMINIUM: dust-like emissions at Lyon site surpasses limits
An Oakland County recycling plant blamed for causing foul odors and health
problems failed state pollution testing, state documents confirm.

Continental Aluminum Corp.'s releases of dust-like emissions exceed its
permit limits by as much as 25 percent, according to Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality documents. The Detroit News secured the results from
the state following a Freedom of Information Act request.

"We live with this pungent smell of aluminum burn-off. Nothing has changed,
nothing is going away," said Douglas Meadows, who lives within a
quarter-mile of the Milford Road plant, just south of Interstate 96.

In a dismal recent record, Continental Aluminum has been cited by federal,
state and local officials during the past year for repeated air pollution.
The DEQ's new test results are the latest evidence of problems, and are
further angering residents living near the plant.

Plant officials, who hired private consultants to conduct the smokestack
tests, now maintain their testing was skewed. Continental takes in window
frames and other aluminum scrap to melt down into ingots for Ford, GM and
their parts suppliers.

No problems were found for either chlorine or hydrogen chloride, chemicals
widely regarded as health hazards. The plant did fail for fine emissions
that are technically known as particulate matter.

"In our view, (the results) are not a violation of our permit," said Wayne
Perry, the company's president. "This is the cleanest secondary smelter in
the industry."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency experts disagree. They are overseeing
state actions underway to ensure the plant cuts its emissions. DEQ
officials and Continental's lawyers declined to comment about any
negotiations aimed at settling the ongoing dispute. "We do have evidence of
a violation -- we do have enough to respond," said Jeffrey L. Gahris, an
EPA environmental engineer based in Chicago. "Time is passing. And it's
getting late (for Continental)."

State scientists believe that dust-like matter escaping the stacks may be
aluminum oxide or fluxes used in the industrial smelting process.

Lyon Township residents, some of whom complain of asthma, nausea and
headaches they connect to plant emissions, continue to be frustrated by
delays. "It's a constant smell of burning plastic and we want it cleaned
up," said township Supervisor James Atchison. "We know we can't get rid of
Continental, but we need this to stop."

Continental officials now face a tangle of state violation notices, federal
censure and civil lawsuits.

Continental "just doesn't care about the health and safety of the
surrounding residents," said Gerald E. Thurswell, a Southfield attorney
representing 157 residents in a class-action suit against the company.

A Detroit News investigation published in February found that Continental
moved from a Detroit site at 1610 Algonquin four years ago to rural Oakland
County after concealing its pollution record in Wayne County.

The investigation concluded that Continental failed to tell Lyon Township
officials about a $50,000 settlement paid to Wayne County for air pollution
problems. Further, executives made no mention of 19 city fire and county
environmental violations issued to the Detroit plant.

Executives also failed to report a 1992 Continental plant fire that exposed
Detroit firefighters to deadly ammonia gas. Facts about the violations and
fire only came to light after The News filed other Freedom of Information
Act requests.

Regardless, Continental scored a victory in September, when it succeeded in
having 83 local air pollution violations dismissed in an Oakland County
district court. Judge Michael Batchik ruled that there was a lack of expert
testimony to sustain the violations.

                        Failing grade

Continental Aluminum failed state pollution tests for dust-like particulate
matter, but was within legal limits for chlorine and hydrogen chloride. The
Lyon Township company disputes the state's findings, but state and federal
regulators are demanding the plant comply.

Chlorine and hydrogen chloride are known hazards to human health.
Particulates can cause lung problems. More than 150 residents have filed
suit against the company, alleging health damages. (The Detroit News,
November 17, 2000)

CORAM HEALTHCARE: G. Martin Meyers Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
The Law Offices of G. Martin Meyers, P.C. announced, pursuant to Section
21(D)(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), notice that a class action lawsuit was filed on November 8, 2000, in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf
of all persons who were holders of shares of the common stock of Coram
Healthcare Corporation, on or before August 8, 2000, and who sold some or
all of their Coram common stock shares at any time on or after August 8,
2000, following the announcement of Coram's bankruptcy filing issued on
that date.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the defendants perpetrated a fraud upon the market for shares
of Coram common stock, by circulating materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions in press releases and otherwise, designed to
artificially deflate the market price of Coram stock, in furtherance of a
plan designed to deprive its stockholders of the value of their equity in
the said stock, and provide for Coram's emergence from bankruptcy
proceedings as a "privately held company," depriving plaintiffs and the
proposed class of Coram stockholders of fair compensation for the value of
their Coram common stock.

The Complaint names as defendants three entities holding long-term
indebtedness of Coram in the approximate amount of $260 million, including
Cerberus Partners, L.P., Goldman, Sachs Credit Partners, L.P., Foothill
Capital Corporation, (collectively the "Lender Defendants"), and the
present and former officers and directors of Coram, and of the Lender
defendants or their affiliates, who participated in the alleged scheme of
securities fraud which forms the basis for the action, including Stephen
Feinberg, Daniel D. Crowley, Scott R. Danitz, Scott T. Larsen, Allen J.
Marabito, Domenic A. Meffe, Vito Ponzio, Jr., Joseph D. Smith, Richard M.
Smith, Donald J. Amaral, William J. Casey, L. Peter Smith, and Sandra L.
Smoley, (collectively, the "Officer and Director Defendants"). Coram itself
is not named as a defendant as it is or was the subject of bankruptcy
proceedings, as of the date of the filing of the Complaint, and the filing
of an Amended Complaint, on November 15, 2000.

Contact: G. Martin Meyers, Esq. Law Offices of G. Martin Meyers, P.C. 35
West Main Street, Suite 106 Denville, New Jersey 07834 973 625-0838 Fax:
973 625-5350 Internet Address: garymeyers@nac.net

CREDIT CARDS: Visa ad MasterCard to Charge Wal-Mart of Destroying Papers
Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard International were to charge in court that
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. destroyed documents related to the antitrust suit the
retailer has filed against the associations.

Judge John Gleeson was to hear the accusations in the U. S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. All related documents have been under
seal and were to become publicly available for the first time.

The card associations plan to move that Wal-Mart be dismissed from the
case, which has been granted class action status. Visa and MasterCard are
challenging that status, and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for Dec.
18. Judge Gleeson has said he will wait for the appeals court to decide the
status of the suit before setting a trial date.

Lloyd Constantine, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "Our only
comment is that Visa and MasterCard have received everything they asked for
and everything they're entitled to receive."

Wal-Mart filed its lawsuit in 1996 to challenge card association rules that
require retailers that accept Visa and MasterCard credit cards to accept
debit cards in those brands as well. Visa and MasterCard debit cards, which
are signature-based, carry higher interchange rates than PIN-based debit
cards, which do not carry the association brands. (The American Banker,
November 17, 2000)

CUTTER BIOLOGICAL: La Ap Ct Affirms Dismissal Of Blood Product Verdict
A Louisiana appeals court panel recently affirmed a lower court ruling
overturning a $ 35.5 million blood products verdict (K.D.D. Smith v. Cutter
Biological, et al., No. 99-CA-2068, La. App., 4th Cir.; See 4/2/99, Page

Ken Dixon was born in 1967 with hemophilia and was treated with blood
factor concentrate. In 1985, Dixon was diagnosed as HIV-positive, based on
a sample drawn and stored in 1982. Dixon sued Cutter Laboratories, Alpha
Therapeutic Corp., Armour Pharmaceutical Corp. and Baxter Healthcare Corp.
in 1993. Dixon developed AIDS and died in 1995. His parents, Leo and
Shirley Dixon, were substituted as plaintiffs in 1997.

                       Wrongful Death Damages

The defendants filed exceptions of prescription, which the trial judge
reserved a ruling on. A trial was held and Bayer and Alpha were found
liable for negligent manufacture of an unreasonably dangerous product and
fraud. The Dixons were awarded $ 35.5 million in survival and wrongful
death damages.

The trial judge ruled that the Dixons' claim had prescribed and dismissed
their claims. On his own initiative, the judge ordered the parties to show
cause why he should not grant a new trial. After a hearing, he confirmed
his original ruling and recalled his show-cause motion.

The Dixons appealed.

After an extensive review of case testimony and case law, a panel of the
Fourth Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeal said: "The foregoing survey of the
jurisprudence of HIV and AIDS related cases allows us to infer from sources
extraneous to the record that no reasonable fact finder could conclude that
Kenneth either did not know or did not have reason to know that he had a
cause of action prior to the end of 1989 in connection with his HIV
infection, arising out of the relation of that infection to AIDS."

"Based on this Court's review of the legislative and jurisprudential
history discussed above," the panel wrote, "we find it difficult to believe
that any reasonable fact finder could have found anything other than that
prescription commenced to run at the very latest in 1987, by which time Dr.
Hamilton [the treating physician] had informed him of the probable
connection between his HIV infection and his hemophilia treatments, the
Louisiana legislature was enacting AIDS related legislation, and HIV and
AIDS related issues had received massive media attention for some time, not
to mention particular information directed to the hemophilia community.

"In view of the foregoing, nothing done by the defendants would excuse the
failure of Kenneth Dixon to file this claim in a timely manner," the panel

                       No Continuing Injury

The appeals panel also rejected the Dixons' arguments that their son
suffered a continuing injury.

"It is uncontested that the decedent was infected, and knew he was
infected, many years prior to the original filing by the decedent," the
panel wrote. "The record also permits the finding that the prognosis of
eventual AIDS related death was virtually inevitable.

"We can find no manifest error in the trial court's findings that the
decedent knew or should have known that he had the HIV infection caused by
the infusion of Factor VIII; that he knew who the manufacturers of the
Factor VIII were because he kept logs; and that the infection was
progressing and progressively damaging his immune system, regardless of
whether he knew for certain that he would develop full blown AIDS," the
panel continued.

"Moreover, the record shows that well over a year prior to the time he
filed suit, Kenneth discussed the possibility of treatment with the drug
AZT," the panel added. "This Court finds it difficult to believe that by
the time AZT became available for treatment that any adult of reasonable
intelligence did not know of the relationship of HIV to AIDS, and that AIDS
was a dreaded disease.

"For more than the past decade newspapers, magazines, TV, and even theater
have been full of references to the subject," the panel said. "It is a
topic that has generated more than just the normal interest in health


"A great deal of publicity has been generated by the societal controversy
sparked by differences of opinion, often strongly felt and acted upon,
concerning how society should deal with the HIV infection and AIDS,
including questions of quarantine, employment, etc., such that even in the
absence of Kenneth and his parents' special reasons to be especially well
informed on the issue, it is difficult to believe that any adult of average
intelligence would not have been sufficiently well informed about HIV
and/or AIDS to put him on notice that he should at least investigate the
existence of a cause of action where he learns of the possibility of HIV
infection," it added.

"After all, no real scientific knowledge is required. All a plaintiff need
know is that he may have an HIV infection, that such an infection has
serious consequences, and that someone else may be responsible for causing
his infection."

"Finally," the panel continued, "we find as did the trial court that the
record does not support a finding that any actions on the part of any of
the defendants prevented the plaintiffs from asserting their various claims
in a timely manner."

                     No Class Action Interruption

The panel also affirmed the trial court's finding that Kenneth's claim was
not interrupted by the filing of putative class actions. In addition, they
agreed that the Dixons' claims did not relate back to the filing of
Kenneth's original petition.

Because the claim is prescribed, the panel did not discuss claims of trial
error and trial conduct.

Thomas W. Mull and Frances Phares of Mull & Mull in Covington, La., Michael
L. Baum of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Downey in Los Angeles, James
W. Orr of Bowers, Orr & Dougall in Columbia, S.C., and Mack E. Barham and
Robert E. Arceneaux of Barham & Arceneaux in New Orleans represent the

Lawrence E. Abbott, Deborah D. Kuchler and Stacy Patton Anderson of Abbott,
Simses, Knister & Kuchler in New Orleans, Philip S. Beck and Lindley J.
Brenza of Bartlit, Beck, Herman Palenchar & Scott in Chicago and Jennifer
E. Heisinger of Barlit Beck in Denver represent Alpha Therapeutic. Jonathan
C. McCall, John F. Olinde, Mary L. Meyer and Douglas L. Grundmeyer of
Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy in New Orleans and Terry O.
Tottenham and Lana K. Varney of Fulbright & Jaworski in Austin, Texas,
represent Bayer Corp.

Charles F. Gay Jr. and E. Paige Sensenbrenner of Adams & Reese in New
Orleans and Robert Limbacher of Dechert, Price & Rhoads in Philadelphia
represent Baxter Healthcare Corp. James B. Irwin, Francis P. Accardo and
Brigid B. Glorioso of Montgomery, Barnett, Brown, Read, Hammond & Mintz in
New Orleans and Sara J. Gourley and Tamar B. Kelber of Sidley & Austin in
Chicago represent Armour Pharmaceutical Co. (Mealey's Emerging Drugs &
Devices, November 2, 2000)

HEARTLAND FUNDS: Kirby McInerney Names PricewaterhouseCoopers in Suit
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has filed an amended
complaint naming PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as an additional defendant in
the class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of all purchasers of shares of
Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: HRHYX) and Heartland
Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund (Nasdaq: HRSDX) (collectively, the
"Funds") from November 9, 1997 through October 16, 2000, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The amended complaint alleges that PricewaterhouseCoopers issued false and
inaccurate opinions and audit reports on the Funds' 1997, 1998 and 1999
financial statements. The complaint also asserts claims against the Funds,
its advisors and portfolio managers.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus stated that the Funds' shares were being sold at net asset value
or "NAV," calculated as a function of "the values of the Fund's assets." In
fact, shares of the Funds during the Class Period were sold at artificially
inflated NAVs as a result of defendants having assigned prices to the
Funds' assets on the Funds' books that did not reflect those assets'
values. Accordingly, the performance of each of the Funds was materially
overstated. In addition, the complaint alleges that the Funds were
investing in excess of 15% of their net assets in "illiquid securities" in
violation of the "concentration limitations" set forth in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus and in SEC guidelines. The complaint also alleges
that the Funds' auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, issued false and
inaccurate audit reports on the Funds' financial statements throughout the
Class Period, and falsely rendered opinions that the Funds' financial
statements were prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles. The class period ends on October 16, 2000, when Heartland
Advisors announced the purported adoption of a new asset pricing policy and
a drastic write down in the NAV of the Funds to reflect the correct
pricing. This write down caused the High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund's NAV to
decline from $8.01 per share to $2.45 per share and the Short Duration
High-Yield Municipal Fund's NAV to be reduced from $8.70 per share to $4.87
per share, a decline of approximately 70% and 44%, respectively.

The lawsuit seeks to recover losses suffered by individual and
institutional investors who purchased shares of the Funds during the class
period, excluding the defendants and their affiliates.

Contact: Mark A. Strauss, Esq., Lewis S. Sandler, Esq., or Shan Anwar,
Paralegal, all of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 212-317-2300,
888-529-4787, or sanwar@kmslaw.com

KNIGHT TRADING: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. gives notice that on November 8, 2000 a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Knight Trading Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:
NITE) between July 19, 2000 and October 4, 2000 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit has been assigned to Judge Katharine Hayden.

The class action complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the of
the Securities and Exchange Commission by, inter alia, making material
misrepresentations concerning the Company's financial conditions. As
alleged in the class action complaint, on October 4, 2000, Knight revealed
its financial problems to the public. The Company could not maintain a 20%
to 30% earnings growth rate for the third quarter 2000. Knight issued a
press release on October 4, 2000 stating that it would post third quarter
profits as much as 58% below Wall Street forecasts because of a weak stock
market and the cost of building up its European operations.

Also, during the class period, the individual defendants, Steven Steinman,
Peter Hajas and Robert M. Lazarowitz sold in excess of $50 million of Nite

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
Notice or rights or interests with respect to these matters, you may
contact: Susan Gross, Esq., susang@bernardmgross.com, or Deborah R. Gross,
Esq., debbie@bernardmgross.com, both of Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.,
866-561-3600, or 215-561-3600

KNIGHT TRADING: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit was filed on November 8, 2000, on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Knight Trading Group Inc. ("Knight" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:NITE) between July 19, 2000 and October 4, 2000, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available
from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:

The action, numbered 00-5506 (KSH) is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, located at 50 Walnut St., Newark, NJ
07102, against defendants Knight, Kenneth Pasternak (CEO, President and
Director), Robert Turner (Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Executive
V.P.), Steven Steinman (Chairman of the Board of Directors until May 2000),
Robert Lazarowitz (Executive V.P., Director and Chief Operating Officer of
Knight Capital Markets). The Honorable Katharine S. Hayden is the Judge
presiding over the case.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between
July 19, 2000 and October 4, 2000. For example, as alleged in the
complaint, on July 19, 2000, defendants represented in an analysts
conference call that they were comfortable with estimates of 20%-30% growth
in earnings per share during the third quarter of 2000, over the comparable
1999 period. The complaint alleges that the statement was made without a
reasonable basis, given operational problems known to defendants, and the
Company's increasing international expansion costs. On November 4, 2000,
Knight issued a press release announcing third quarter results that were
well below its prior assurances. In reaction to this announcement, the
price of Knight's shares dropped by 14% in one day. Prior to disclosing the
above information, certain Knight insiders sold $50,000,000 worth of their
personally held Knight common stock.

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

MTA, ACCESS: Disabled Commuters' Suit in CA Demands Better Van Service
Disabled commuters sued in federal court, demanding improvements in shuttle
services used by 40,000 people with disabilities in Los Angeles County.

The lawsuit, filed by the Western Law Center for Disability Rights, the
ACLU and Protection and Advocacy Inc. cited accounts that commuters who use
wheelchairs have been left stranded in dangerous places because shuttle
vans arrived hours late or not at all.

Named as defendants in the class-action suit are the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and Access Services Inc., a nonprofit agency under
contract to provide transit services to the disabled.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, cities with regular bus lines
must provide comparable services for the disabled.

To comply with that requirement, Access Services operates a fleet of about
450 specially equipped vans and contracts with taxi companies for an
additional 1,500 vehicles.

Rides must be booked in advance but having a reservation does not guarantee
a timely pickup, the suit says.

Nadine Flores, one of six plaintiffs, said she has been using Access
Services since 1996 to travel to and from her job. Because of frequent
delays, she said, she has had to wait alone for hours at a time on a
deserted street, sometimes in the cold. Flores has spinal muscular atrophy.

Stefanie Michihara, who has cerebral palsy and uses an electric wheelchair,
said she is consistently late to her college classes because of driver

Johnny Bolagh, who is blind and has diabetes, anemia and kidney problems,
said Access Service drivers are often late by more than an hour and
sometimes fail to show up at all.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said Access Service's own numbers show that the
company has failed to provide services comparable to regular public
transit. Although Access Service reports an on-time rate of about 90%, it
said the MTA's on-time rate is 99.51%.

But Richard DeRock, executive director of Access Services, said the MTA
figure cited in the suit is misleading. The MTA's actual on-time rate is
about 60%, he said. An MTA spokesman confirmed that, saying the 99.51%
figure refers to on-time departures from bus yards.

"We would be in heaven if our on-time rate at bus stops was anything like
that," said spokesman Marc Littman.

"I'm not trying to deny that there are people who have had real problems,"
said DeRock, "but we have consistently tried to address those concerns and
improve our service to the community."

DeRock questioned the timing of the lawsuit, noting that it came two days
after the Federal Transit Administration threw out a complaint against
Access Services over alleged service deficiencies.

In a letter to the Western Law Center for Disability Rights, the federal
agency said it had found that Access Service's on-time performance had
improved from 73% in 1993 to 93% this year, during a period in which total
ridership increased more than tenfold.

The percentage of no-shows by shuttle vans also declined, the letter said.
The rate of missed trips was 6% in 1997-98, 0.9% in 1998-99 and now stands
at 4%, according to the agency, a branch of the federal Department of

Access Services receives about 70% of its funding from the federal
government and about 18% from the MTA. The rest comes from the state of
California and from fares, which range from $ 1.50 to $ 4 a ride. (Los
Angeles Times, November 17, 2000)

NGK METAL: PA Judge Remands Beryllium Case For Lack Of Jurisdiction
A Pennsylvania federal judge on Oct. 4 remanded a beryllium exposure class
action to state court because the plaintiffs' claims do not exceed $ 75,000
(Sandra Pohl, et al. v. NGK Metal Corp., et al., No. 00-4165, E.D. Pa.).

Zahn v. International Paper Co. (414 U.S. 291 [1973]) is the authority in
the instant case because of its similarities, Judge Harvey Bartle III of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found.

"We are convinced that the claims here are separate and distinct. . . .
Each putative class member has suffered a distinct harm from the
defendants' alleged negligence," the judge said.

Plaintiffs filed a motion Sept. 13 to determine if the case should be
remanded to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, where it
originated. Defendants NGK Metals Corp. and Cabot Corp. removed the case to
the federal court in July.

                         Trust Fund Sought

Judge Bartle said plaintiffs are asking defendants to create a trust fund
to compensate them for their individual injuries and to give each class
member a common and undivided interest in it.

"We cannot aggregate the value of all the claims of the class members in
order to meet the amount in controversy required under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a),"
he said, citing Zahn.

Plaintiffs allege that NGK Metals and Cabot Corp. negligently introduced
beryllium dust, fumes and particulate matter into the environment,
including the air. As a result of their activities, the Reading, Pa., area
manufacturers caused respiratory disease in residents living near the
plant, they claim. The plaintiffs seek a court-administered medical
monitoring fund to provide tests, screening and treatment for conditions
linked to the exposure.

Ruben Honik of Greitzer & Honik in Philadelphia and Howard Langer of
Sandals & Langer in Philadelphia represent the plaintiffs. Thomas C. De
Lorenzo and Stephanie K. Tartakow of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman
and Goggin in Philadelphia and Neil S. Witkes of Manko, Gold & Katcher in
Bala Cynwyd, Pa., represent the defendants. NGK METAL:(Mealey's Emerging
Toxic Torts, November 3, 2000)

PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Approve Plan Of Liquidation
Philips International Realty Corp. (NYSE-PHR), a real estate investment
trust (REIT) which has specialized in the ownership, acquisition for
redevelopment and development of neighborhood and community shopping
centers predominantly located in the greater New York metropolitan area,
reported its operating results for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2000 and its intention to proceed with the plan of
liquidation. FFO for third quarter 2000 totaled $.39 per share.

Plan of Liquidation

On October 10, 2000, the stockholders approved the plan of liquidation
which, among other things, includes the Kimco Transaction and the Unit
Holders Transaction. The Kimco transaction comprises the purchase of the
Company's interest in eight properties by Kimco Income REIT ("Kimco") for
approximately $ 137 million. The Unit Holders Transaction comprises the
distribution of the Company's interest in four shopping center properties
in Hialeah, Florida and the sale of its interest in two redevelopment sites
for a total value of approximately $131 million to certain limited partners
(the "Unit Holders") in the Operating Partnership including Philip
Pilevsky, the Company's Chairman and CEO, in redemption of their entire
interest in the Operating Partnership. In addition, the Company's seven
remaining properties are currently being offered for sale. In lieu of the
third quarter 2000 dividend and subsequent regular quarterly dividends, two
or more liquidating distributions will be made as soon as practicable to
stockholders pursuant to the plan of liquidation.

               Lawsuits over Pending Plan of Liquidation

On October 2, 2000, a class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
directors. The complaint alleged a number of improprieties concerning the
pending plan of liquidation of the Company. The Company believes that the
asserted claims are without merit, and will defend such action vigorously.
On November 9, 2000, the Court, ruling from the bench, denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Company plans to close
the pending transactions pursuant to the plan of liquidation as soon as

Financial Summary (In thousands of dollars, except FFO per share data)

                                        Three Months Ended  Nine Months
                                            September 30,       September
                                             2000   1999          2000

Operating Data:
Revenues                                $10,304  $11,922     $35,707
FFO                                      $ 3,817  $ 5,026     $13,992
$13,926 FFO Per Share (a)                     $ .39     $  .51      $
1.43   $ 1.42

Based upon 9,812,869 total common shares (7,340,474) and Operating
Partnership units (2,472,395) outstanding.

September 30, 2000 Balance Sheet
Data: Real estate investments        $216,198
Total assets                             $270,316
Mortgages/notes payable                $147,253
Shareholders' equity                    $ 87,336

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FL Supreme Ct to Hear Arguments Monday Afternoon
In legal papers filed Sunday, Bush's lawyers argued that Republican
Secretary of State Katherine Harris has the authority to certify election
results without accepting hand counts. They also said allowing the recounts
to continue in selected Democratic-leaning counties would violate the
constitutional rights of voters elsewhere. ``The selective manual recounts
authorize county boards to engage in arbitrary and unequal counting of
votes, and result in the disparate treatment of Florida voters based solely
on where within the state they happen to reside,'' Bush argued.

In a separate brief, Harris tried to distance herself from both Bush and
Gore, even as Democrats pointed to her GOP presidential campaigning as a
sign of bias. ``It is clear, that for the Democrats and the Republicans,
the object is to win, and that is understandable,'' Harris' brief said.
``The stakes are very high.''

The Florida Supreme Court, whose seven justices were appointed by
Democratic governors, will hear arguments Monday afternoon.

Twelve days after America voted, the weekend tally of overseas absentee
ballots lengthened Bush's tiny 300-vote lead to a still-minuscule 930. With
recounts under way in two Democratic-leaning counties and third set to
begin, Gore had a net gain of 81 votes, which if allowed would cut Bush's
lead to 849. Gore narrowly won the national popular vote and holds a slight
edge over Bush in the all-important Electoral College tally, though neither
man can win the White House without Florida.

The identity of America's 43rd president rests with the courts and in the
ballot-counting rooms of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, where
more than 1.5 million ballots were cast, a majority from Democrats.

``It seems to be that they're doing everything they can to stop the
recounting of votes because they're slightly ahead and they fear that after
the recounting they won't be,'' said Democratic vice presidential candidate
Joseph Lieberman, who conducted a rare tour of all five major news shows

Bush's camp continued its assault on the Gore-backed recounts, depicting
the process as riddled with human error and Democratic bias. ``God only
knows how many ballots have been altered,'' Gov. Marc Racicot said on ``Fox
News Sunday.'' He called the nation's political standoff ``a very tangled

Gore's advisers were frustrated Sunday by small recount gains in Palm Beach
County, where the election tempest first began when Democratic voters
complained of a confusing ballot.

The vice president's team accused the local elections board of imposing a
too-strict standard for reading ballots. His lawyers planned to ask the
Supreme Court to establish a uniform standard for all three counties,
preferring rules that give officials great discretion to discern voters'
intent when punch-out ballots are slightly punctured.

In one Palm Beach precinct, Democrats said Gore picked up 11 votes in a
sample recount conducted more than a week ago. When the same precinct was
counted Saturday, Gore had lost 11 votes from the first tally. The board
had actually counted 202 precincts, but only released totals where there
were no disputed ballots. In Broward County, Gore's count by midday Sunday
showed a net gain over 80. More than half the 609 precincts remain to be

Republicans accused the elections board of bowing to political pressure and
reversing a decision to throw out ballots that did not have two corners
poked out of the ``chad'' - the tiny pieces of paper in a punch-card
ballot. ``The Gore campaign now wants to lower the bar because it needs
more votes,'' said Ed Pozzuoli, chairman of the county GOP.

Democrats said the ruling allows voters' intentions to be noted. ``These
chad marks didn't get on the ballot by osmosis,'' said Democratic attorney
Charles Lichtman.

Miami-Dade County began mechanically sorting ballots by machine in
preparation for a hand count. Bush's attorneys protested the action, saying
it would alter the delicate ballots, but a circuit judge gave the go-ahead.

There was conflict in the overseas count, too, as the GOP charged Democrats
with systematically challenge votes cast by members of the armed forces.
President Clinton's secretary of defense, Republican William Cohen, weighed
in from Saudi Arabia. ``The last thing we want to do is make it harder for
those wearing our uniform and serving overseas to be able to cast a
ballot,'' he said.

Lieberman seemed sensitive to the potential controversy, urging Florida
officials ``to take another look'' at discarded military ballots.

Tempers flared as the count dragged on. A fracas broke out in Palm Beach
when a counter accidentally put a ballot in the wrong stack. ``You would
have though she'd killed 14 people,'' County Judge Charles Burton
complained. He urged monitors from both political camps to make their
points ``in a nice way.''

Burton said Republicans in particular are too concerned about stray chads,
recalling what happened when a scrap of paper fell to the floor. With a
chuckle, he quoted a GOP monitor yelling, ``There's a chad on the floor.
Help!' ``Some of them are going to fall off, and that's fine,'' Burton
said. ``I think they were selling packets of 20 on eBay.''

Party elders said nothing about the long-count election is a laughing
matter. ``If this goes longer, it will cast doubts on the legitimacy of the
next president,'' said former Republican Sen. Howard Baker on CBS's ``Face
the Nation.''

Appearing on the same show, former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn said, ``Both
sides should accept the Florida Supreme Court decision. Everybody's trying
to litigate themselves out of this.''

President Clinton, wrapping up a trip to Vietnam, told CNN that the nation
doesn't need ``all this hand wringing'' and added: ``Everybody ought to
just relax and let the process play out.''

Bush filed legal papers arguing that the three counties missed last week's
deadline for certifying results with ``not a scintilla of evidence''
explaining why. ``It would be highly inequitable to keep the state and the
nation on hold to finish a manual recount when the responsible officials
failed expeditiously even to begin the process,'' the brief said.

The Miami-Dade recount is expected to last into December. (Associated
Press, Nov. 20, 2000)

WATER CONTAMINATION: Walkerton Hearing Set for  Jan 15 in Ontario Ct
The motion for class action certification in the Walkerton contaminated
water tragedy will be heard on January 15, 2001. The Honourable Mr. Justice
Warren K. Winkler of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered that
five days be set aside for arguments on the motion beginning January 15,

"I am delighted that this process is moving ahead expeditiously," said
Harvey Strosberg, one of the counsel for the plaintiffs. "In nine short
weeks, a transparent, public process will begin that will help Walkerton
residents decide what is the best way for them to receive the compensation
they deserve."

The class action counsel group represents hundreds of Walkerton  residents
and seeks to have the Court certify a class action encompassing everyone
who was affected by the contaminated water supply. The defendants are the
Corporation of the Municipality of Brockton, the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound
Health Unit, Stan Koebel, the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission and the
Government of Ontario.

Earlier this month, the class action counsel group wrote to residents of
Walkerton to urge them to wait until the court hearing before deciding
whether or not to accept compensation from the Government of Ontario. In
part, that letter said:

     No one yet knows what the long-term health consequences might be or
many of you, what the final bill for damages will be, and what the final
human toll will be on all of you as a result of a greatly diminished
quality of life.

    As part of the class action process, a judge of the Ontario Court --
unbiased and objective -- will decide whether Walkerton residents will be
better served by the class action or by the government's plan. The judge, a
person independent of government, will make that decision solely on the
basis of what's fair, not what's easiest for the government, or what saves
the government or insurers money or what will avoid political

    Waiting does not mean that you have to sign on with the class action.
You can always decide to opt-out and go it alone and bring your own
lawsuit, or accept the government's offer, or do nothing if you choose.
Waiting gives you the benefit of hearing what the judge thinks, and that
may be of real help to you in deciding what to do.

    "With this timetable, Walkerton residents now know they will not have
to wait very long to get the critical information and advice they need,"
said Scott Ritchie, another of the council for the plaintiffs.

    He went on to say: "We believe that this decision-making process should
be treated respectfully and the courts are where Walkerton residents should
place their trust to get a fair, unbiased resolution."

The order issued by Mr. Justice Winkler also stipulates that:

   -- the cross-examinations of all deponents and examinations of witnesses
be completed on or before December 1, 2000;

   -- the representative plaintiffs deliver their factum on the motion for
certification on or before December 20, 2000; and

   -- each respondent deliver his or its factum on the motion for
certification on or before January 5, 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  * * *