CAR_Public/001201.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, December 1, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 233

                             Headlines

AT&T: Milberg Weiss and NH Retirement System File Securities Suits in NJ
BAYER CORP: Mass. Jury Awards $ 15.9M For Environmental Damage
BIO CROPS: USDA Mulls about Regulations to Separate and Monitor Crops
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, FORD: Keep Recalled Tires As Potential Evidence
CABLE CAR: US Attorney Meets With State Prosecutor On Tragedy In Austria

CHRYSLER: Weiss & Yourman Files Suit On Behalf of Former Shareholders
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Schoengold & Sporn Files Securities Suit in Delaware
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in Delaware
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Detroit News Says Anger Brewed Before Kerkorian Sued
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Germans Say Daimler Overpaid For Crasher

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIERS: CA Plans to Present Strategy for Energy Crisis
FERDINAND MARCOS: Zamora Criticized U.S. Judge for Terminating Deal
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Belgian Speech Software Maker Files for Bankruptcy
MILLER INDUSTRIES: Announces Dismissal of Shareholder Lawsuit in GA
MYLAN LABORATORIES: FTC OKs $100M Settlement in Drug Price Fixing Suit

NETMANAGE, INC: Schubert & Reed Files Securities Suit in California
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in California
PADUCAH GASEOUS: DOJ Wants More Time to Consider Whether to Join
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Ballots Trucked to Florida Capital
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Fla. Republican Legislature Urges Special Session

PSINet INC: Files Motions to Dismiss Securities Litigation
QUINTUS CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Expands Lawsuit over Mustang.com Merger
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appellate Court Affirms Denial of Geiger Action
TRILOGY SOFTWARE: TX Court Prohibits Tender Offer for pcOrder.com, Inc.
UNISYS CORP: Securities Suit Will Continue, E.D. Pa. Says

                              *********

AT&T: Milberg Weiss and NH Retirement System File Securities Suits in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 27, 2000, Milberg Weiss announced that a class action lawsuit
had been filed on October 27, 2000, on behalf of purchasers of the stock
of AT&T Corporation ("AT&T" or the "Company") (NYSE:T) between October
25, 1999 and May 1, 2000 (the "Class Period"). That notice was published
on October 27, 2000 on Business Wire. The lawsuit announced in the
October 27, 2000 notice was filed by plaintiff, the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98, against defendants AT&T and
C. Michael Armstrong in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey. The case number of the action is Civil Action No.
3:00cv05364 (GEB). The action is pending before the Honorable Garrett E.
Brown, Jr., at the United States District Court, Clarkson S. Fisher
Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New
Jersey 08608.

In addition, on November 27, 2000, plaintiff, the New Hampshire
Retirement System ("New Hampshire"), filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of the stock of AT&T between October 25, 1999 and
May 1, 2000 against defendants AT&T and C. Michael Armstrong in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case
number for the New Hampshire action is Civil Action No. 3:00cv05785
(GEB). The action is pending before the Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.,
at the United States District Court, Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building
& U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608. A
copy of the complaint filed by New Hampshire can be viewed on Milberg
Weiss's web site at: http://www.milberg.com/att/.

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

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


BAYER CORP: Mass. Jury Awards $ 15.9M For Environmental Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------
CASE TYPE: environmental property damage

CASE: Kanavos v. Bayer Corp., No. 96-7232-D (Super. Ct., Middlesex Co.,
Mass.)

PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS: Paul S. Samson and Craig J. Ziady of Boston's
Riemer & Braunstein

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS: Lawrence C. Kenna and H. Hamilton Hackney III of
Boston's Choate, Hall & Stewart

JURY VERDICT: $ 15.9 million

FROM THE 1970s through 1994, Bayer Corp. and several predecessor
companies were tenants at a 90,000-square-foot building at 65 Industrial
Way in Wilmington, Mass. During this time, said plaintiffs' attorney Paul
S. Samson, Bayer and the other companies operated a sheet metal and
industrial paint plant at which cleaning solvents containing 1, 1,
1-tricholoethane, or TCA, were used.

In 1994, the owners of the building, the I. Fred DiCenso Trust,
"discovered TCA in the groundwater" below the structure, said Mr. Samson.
This TCA had also broken down into other toxic chemicals, he said.

In July 1996, Arthur Kanavos and Rossana DiCenso, trustees of the DiCenso
Trust, sued Bayer Corp. In October 1998, after an investigation of a
separate, 231,000-square-foot property at 80 Industrial Way, the
plaintiffs added this site to the lawsuit, alleging that this property
was also contaminated.

At the beginning of trial, Bayer conceded liability for environmental
damage and negligence regarding both properties and accepted
responsibility for past and future cleanup costs at 65 Industrial Way,
noted defense counsel Lawrence C. Kenna. But the company contested the
lost-property-value damages and contended that Bayer was already paying
for the cleanup at 80 Industrial Way.

On Oct. 17, a Cambridge, Mass., jury awarded the plaintiffs $ 15.9
million. In an advisory verdict, the jury found that Bayer had committed
unfair or deceptive practices and suggested an additional $ 5 million
award. A final determination of liability on this count and any award
will be determined by the trial judge, noted Mr. Samson. Until then, said
Mr. Kenna, no post-trial motions will be filed. (The National Law
Journal, November 27, 2000)


BIO CROPS: USDA Mulls about Regulations to Separate and Monitor Crops
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid the debate over the bio-corn contamination
that triggered the recall of hundreds of foods, the U.S. Agriculture
Department said on Wednesday it was mulling what new regulations might be
needed to separate and monitor gene-spliced crops.

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said the USDA wants the food industry,
farm groups, grain exporters and consumer activists to offer suggestions
on what, if anything, the USDA ought to do to help farmers market biotech
crops in a way that will preserve public confidence.

Under federal law, the USDA is responsible for promoting American farm
exports, which generate some $50 billion annually and are a crucial part
of farm income.

But the department also is responsible for inspecting meat and poultry
plants, preventing plant diseases, approving field trials of new
gene-altered crops, and maintaining U.S. consumer confidence in a safe
food supply.

``One of the things we want to talk about with the world, with the
public, is what is our role? What ought to be our role in dealing with
the marketing of these products?'' Glickman told reporters after
addressing a meeting of the USDA's agricultural biotechnology advisory
committee.

The USDA will publish on Thursday in the Federal Register a detailed
notice asking for public comments and guidance.

                    Should Usda Certify Bio-Crops?

Among the key issues are whether the USDA should be involved in reviewing
or certifying the performance of companies' systems to carefully
segregate gene-altered grain from conventional crops.

Another issue is whether the USDA should create definitions for biotech
and non-biotech crops as part of its quality grades and standards.

The department also wants to know if it should expand its accreditation
of laboratories that detect biotech grains and oilseeds to other kinds of
gene-spliced crops, such as fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants.

``We've got to make sure we do it in the way that makes the most sense,''
Glickman said, referring to any possible new biotech regulations.

Most U.S. farmers, grain elevators, processing firms and shippers are
accustomed to handling corn, for example, as a commodity crop that can be
freely interchanged because the quality is roughly the same for most
varieties.

The contamination of huge quantities of the American corn supply with
StarLink bio-corn this year has been blamed on the accidental commingling
by farmers and grain elevators who were not aware of the need for strict
segregation.

StarLink, made by Aventis SA (AVE.N), was approved by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for use only in livestock feed because of
concerns about human allergies. As part of that licensing approval,
Aventis had to promise to keep the corn completely separate from
varieties headed for human food use.

In September, traces of StarLink were found in taco shells and more than
300 kinds of chips, cornmeal and other foods were recalled by food
companies. Several key buyers of U.S. corn such as Japan and South Korea
have balked at purchasing more shipments because of fears of
contamination.

``I'm not sure that the particular company (Aventis) did an effective job
of doing what they needed to do to protect the situation here,'' Glickman
said. ``It is something that I don't think industry was ready for.''

                Segregation Crucial For New Bio-Crops

New regulations and programs to strictly separate crops may be even more
important as agribusinesses develop the next generation of bio-plants
that are engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and nutritional benefits,
USDA officials said.

Some seed companies are already at work creating plants that will offer
such consumer benefits. Currently, gene-spliced plants are designed
mainly to fight pests and increase yields for farmers.

``When you are talking about something like pharmaceuticals, I think all
of us envision it being a carefully regulated crop. It's not going to be
deregulated like we have done with Bt corn,'' said Keith Pitts, a special
advisor to Glickman on biotech issues.

StarLink is a variety of Bt corn, so-named because it contains a natural
pesticide known as bacillus thuringiensis.

But some U.S. crops are already being carefully separated throughout
production and distribution, said Richard Rominger, deputy agriculture
secretary.

Makers of specialty seeds for lawns have set up marketing channels to
keep different varieties pure and clearly identified. ''We do have the
capability in industry but it's never been something that the grain
industry has had to deal with,'' Rominger said.

Currently, three U.S. agencies share responsibility for various aspects
of bioengineered foods.

The USDA monitors the crop and environmental impacts of seed companies'
field trials of new gene-modified crops. The Food and Drug Administration
has jurisdiction over labeling and human safety issues related to biotech
plants. And the EPA becomes involved when a plant is engineered to
contain a gene that acts as a pesticide, like StarLink.

Aventis has since asked the EPA to grant temporary approval of StarLink
in human food, citing what it said is new scientific data that shows the
gene-spliced corn is harmless. (Washington (Reuters))


BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, FORD: Keep Recalled Tires As Potential Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. has agreed to preserve some of its recalled
tires as potential evidence in lawsuits against the company, a key
attorney in the cases said Wednesday.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs said a tentative deal had been struck with
the tire maker, pending a final agreement which both sides hoped to reach
before a Dec. 6 court hearing.

A spokeswoman for the tire company confirmed the tentative agreement.

The plaintiffs' attorneys want to prove that defects like those under
investigation in dozens of accidents were not limited to the tire models
covered by the company's massive recall.

U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker on Nov. 17 ordered the
company to stop shredding recalled tires until both sides could agree on
how to save some for evidence.

Firestone said the shredding was part of its normal recycling program and
that the tires being destroyed were not linked to the cases.

About 160 cases from around the country, many of them involving
allegations of injury or death, have been consolidated in federal court
in Indianapolis.

Many of the lawsuits allege that Bridgestone/Firestone's Aug. 9 recall of
6.5 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires - most of them used on
the Ford Explorer - was not broad enough to include all defective models.

Two out of every 100 recalled tires have been set aside as potential
evidence, and about 20,000 other tires are also being preserved.

The government is investigating more than 3,500 complaints about the
tires, including reports of 119 deaths and more than 500 injuries. Many
of the complaints involve sudden tread separation, mostly on Ford
Explorers. (AP, November 29, 2000)


CABLE CAR: US Attorney Meets With State Prosecutor On Tragedy In Austria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. attorney Ed Fagan, who has made a name for himself in class action
suits representing Holocaust victims, met with the state prosecutor
investigating the circumstances of the cable car tragedy that killed 155
skiers and snowboarders.

Fagan recently invited survivors and relatives of the victims to contact
him for possible legal proceedings against those found responsible for
the accident, the worst ever involving winter holidayers in Austria.

His visit comes a day after all 155 victims were identified by forensic
experts working primarily with DNA samples because the remains were too
badly burned to be recognized by relatives.

The victims died Nov. 11, after a fire engulfed a cable car traveling
through a mountain tunnel at the Alpine resort of Kaprun.

Eight Americans were among the dead. The other victims were from Austria,
Germany, Japan, Slovenia, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic.

Extensive investigations are continuing to try to establish the cause of
the fire. (AP Worldstream, November 30, 2000)


CHRYSLER: Weiss & Yourman Files Suit On Behalf of Former Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all former shareholders of
Chrysler Corporation who held shares of Chrysler on August 6, 1998 and
exchanged those shares for shares of DaimlerChrysler AG
("DamilerChrysler") (NYSE:DCX) as a result of a merger between Chrysler
and Daimler-Benz AG.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the
defendants have admitted that they intentionally misrepresented and never
intended to honor their commitment that the Merger would be a "merger of
equals." It alleges that Daimler-Benz acquired Chrysler without paying a
takeover premium and that the trading value of the securities issued in
connection with the Merger has declined substantially because Chrysler
was treated as a mere division and its management team was eviscerated.

Contact: Weiss & Yourman James E. Tullman, Mark D. Smilow and/or David C.
Katz 888/593-4771 or 212/682-3025 wynyc@aol.com


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Schoengold & Sporn Files Securities Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C. announced that a securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware against DaimlerChrysler AG ("DaimlerChrysler") (NYSE: DCX),
Daimler-Benz AG ("Daimler-Benz") and certain of their key officers on
behalf of persons who owned the common stock of Chrysler Corporation
("Chrysler") from August 6, 1998 to November 17, 1998 ("the "Class
Period") as well as all persons whose Chrysler shares were converted into
shares of DaimlerChrysler stock in connection with the merger of Chrysler
with a DaimlerChrysler subsidiary (the "Merger").

The securities class action complaint charges the defendants with
violations of the federal securities laws (Sections 11 and 12(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), by, among
other things, omitting material information and disseminating materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Merger, contained in
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The
registration statement/proxy statement issued in connection with the
Merger represented that the Merger would be a "merger-of-equals"
transaction, and the complaint alleges that this representation was
materially false and misleading.

In a recent article published in the Financial Times of London, Jurgen
Schrempp, the chairman and chief executive officer of Daimler-Benz and
the co-chairman and co-chief executive officer of DaimlerChrysler, was
quoted in part as stating:

"Me being a chess player, I don't normally talk about the second or third
move. The structure we have now with Chrysler (as a standalone division)
was always the structure I wanted ... We had to go a roundabout way but
it had to be done for psychological reasons. If I had gone and said
Chrysler would be a division, everybody on their side would have said:
'There is no way we'll do a deal.'

"But it's precisely what I wanted to do. From the start structure, we
have moved to what we have today."

The complaint alleges that defendants always intended to relegate
Chrysler to the status of a "division" and always intended to replace
Chrysler's management with executives from Daimler-Benz's headquarters in
Stuttgart.

Contact: Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 212-964-0046, 800-232-8092, fax -
212-267-8137, SHAREHOLDERRELATIONS@SPORNLAW.COM


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on behalf of all investors who held Chrysler
Corporation securities at the time of the announcement of the proposed
Daimler-Benz transaction and who exchanged their Chrysler securities for
DaimlerChrysler AG ("DaimlerChrysler") securities (NYSE: DCX) pursuant to
the merger, and who suffered damages thereby (the "Class").

The complaint charges that defendants Daimler-Benz AG ("Daimler-Benz")
and DaimlerChrysler engaged in a concerted fraud orchestrated by
defendant Jurgen Schrempp, the long-time chairman and chief executive
officer of Daimler-Benz, and implemented by that company's executive
inner circle, including defendants Manfred Gentz and Hilmar Kopper in
order to induce Chrysler shareholders to tender their shares of Chrysler
to Daimler-Benz.

As detailed in the complaint, Mr. Schrempp knew that Chrysler's directors
and shareholders would never approve a transaction if he told the truth,
namely, that a foreign corporation was seeking to acquire complete
operating control of one of America's "Big Three" auto manufacturers.
Thus, Mr. Schrempp falsely told Chrysler and its shareholders that
Daimler-Benz contemplated a true "merger of equals" in which Daimler-Benz
and Chrysler would operate as two equal companies with Chrysler's
management continuing to run U.S. operations and having parity in all
respects with Daimler-Benz's management, including equal representation
on the management team of the combined companies.

According to the complaint, defendants never intended the transaction to
be a merger of equals and never intended to have Chrysler run as an
independent and co-equal cooperation. To the contrary, defendants always
intended to relegate Chrysler to the status of a "division," and always
intended to replace Chrysler's management with executives from
Daimler-Benz's headquarters in Stuttgart. This plan culminated on Friday,
November 17, 2000, when Mr. Schrempp fired James P. Holden from his post
as chief executive officer of Chrysler's operation in North America, and
replaced Mr. Holden with Dieter Zetsche and Wolfgang Bernhard, two of Mr.
Schrempp's former confederates. All told, by Thanksgiving, Mr. Schrempp
had fired almost all of Chrysler's top executives and now feels free to
exercise openly his control over the combined companies. His cavalier
attitude toward the American executives who believed his prior promises
and the welfare of Chrysler's employees has so devastated the company
that Mr. Schrempp has been forced to apologize to over 400 of Chrysler's
managers to maintain order and in an effort to prevent the further
downward spiral of DaimlerChrysler's stock which has dropped
approximately 18% in the last three weeks.

Plaintiff seeks actual damages which include the acquisition premium that
defendants denied investors, under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; an award of "rescissory" damages representing the
difference between the value of the common stock of Chrysler that
investors exchanged in the merger and the present value of the stock that
investors now own in DaimlerChrysler, under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933; to award of compensatory and punitive damages
in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example of defendants for
lying to Chrysler's shareholders and the investing public at large, under
common law fraud and conspiracy; and to unwind the transaction in order
to allow Chrysler once again to exist as an independent corporation owned
by Chrysler's shareholders and to return all value, including
distributions, which DaimlerChrysler caused Chrysler to transfer since
the merger, under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Contact: Stull, Stull & Brody, New York Tzivia Brody, Esq.,
1-800-337-4983 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Detroit News Says Anger Brewed Before Kerkorian Sued
---------------------------------------------------------------------
His frustration over events at DaimlerChrysler AG had been brewing for
months before Kirk Kerkorian filed his $8-billion lawsuit against the
German automaker on Monday.

The 83-year-old billionaire wasn't just angry over a cancelled meeting
with DaimlerChrysler Chairman Juergen Schrempp. He didn't focus only on
the slumping stock price, the exodus of American executives, or even
Schrempp's admission that he never intended DaimlerChrysler to be a
merger of equals.

Kerkorian simply had had enough. And he wasn't about to let Schrempp
ignore him any longer.

But Schrempp can't ignore Kerkorian now. The enigmatic financier, who
owns a 4-percent stake in DaimlerChrysler, is a patient, tenacious
opponent who is not going away. "When Kirk gets unhappy, it happens over
time," said Terry Christensen, Kerkorian's attorney. "Since the beginning
of the year, bit by bit, he got angrier."

The anger boiled over Monday when Kerkorian's Tracinda Corp. filed suit
in U.S. District Court in Delaware against DaimlerChrysler, Schrempp, and
two other top German officials.

The suit charged Schrempp with fraud in misrepresenting the
DaimlerChrysler deal in 1998 as a merger of equals when he was, in fact,
planning a takeover of Chrysler.

Kerkorian, who owned a 13.7-percent stake in Chrysler, claims he never
would have voted his shares in favor of a deal that stripped Chrysler of
its autonomy and destroyed its executive roster.

His lawsuit has been followed in rapid fashion by a series of copycat
class- action suits. As of Wednesday, five law firms have filed nearly
identical suits against Schrempp and DaimlerChrysler.

                           Going toe-to-toe

Kerkorian is approaching his showdown with Schrempp in the same way he
stood toe-to-toe with Chrysler in 1995.

When Chrysler fought off Kerkorian's own attempted buyout of the
automaker, Kerkorian reloaded and threatened a proxy fight to recast the
company's board of directors. After a protracted public battle, Chrysler
ultimately gave Kerkorian what he wanted: a board seat for one of his
deputies, a major stock buyback to boost the share price, and fatter
dividend payouts.

The legal fight launched by Kerkorian on Monday is shaping up as the same
type of long-term war of nerves. "I would never say that Kirk wouldn't be
willing to settle out of court," said Christensen. "But it's highly,
highly improbable."

DaimlerChrysler has yet to react to Kerkorian's suit except to publicly
dismiss it as "without merit," according to a company spokesman.

                           Legal papers served

Christensen said that legal papers were served on DaimlerChrysler in
Delaware on Tuesday, and that a German-translated version of the suit
will be served on the company by early next week. From that point,
DaimlerChrysler will have 20 days to respond in court.

Unless DaimlerChrysler can get the case dismissed in court, depositions
of company executives, including Schrempp, could begin in early spring.

Kerkorian has been silently moving toward a confrontation with Schrempp
since early this year. In February, he expressed his disappointment to
associates about the departures of key Chrysler executives, including
Chrysler's former chairman, Robert J. Eaton, and president, Thomas
Stallkamp.

                           $1.4-billion loss

The steady deterioration in the company's stock also vexed him. As of
Wednesday, the value of his 33 million shares has plummeted by about $1.4
billion since the DaimlerChrysler deal was finalized in November 1998.
DaimlerChrysler shares closed Wednesday at $39.02, down 0.5 percent.

Moreover, Kerkorian found himself unable to influence Schrempp or the
DaimlerChrysler supervisory board. James Aljian, a top Kerkorian aide,
served on the company's "shareholder committee," but that group lacked
any authority in the German corporate governance system.

Even so, the shareholder committee, including Aljian, tried to convince
Schrempp that a stock-buyback program -- a favorite tactic of Kerkorian's
-- could pump up the flagging stock price.

Kerkorian himself hoped to push for a stock buyback in a personal meeting
with Schrempp.

                          Kerkorian rebuffed

In May, Kerkorian was in Berlin at the same time as the DaimlerChrysler
annual shareholders meeting. Aljian approached Schrempp to make time for
a meeting with Kerkorian. Schrempp agreed, then cancelled the session.

Kerkorian, associates say, was livid when he learned that Schrempp flew
to his ranch in South Africa rather than meet with him.

The rebuff intensified Kerkorian's analysis of the worsening situation
within Chrysler. Through intermediaries, he learned of the sagging morale
of executives and managers at Chrysler headquarters in Auburn Hills. He
grew concerned that Schrempp had stripped the old Chrysler of any
semblance of independence.

By early October, Kerkorian asked Christensen to analyze possible courses
of legal action. "We began exploring options," Christensen said.

                             The last straw

Then, on Oct. 30, the Financial Times article landed on Kerkorian's desk
in his office just off of ritzy Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Kerkorian, associates said, was floored by Schrempp's admission that the
"merger of equals" laid out in the DaimlerChrysler proxy was never
Schrempp's intent.

"If I had gone and said Chrysler would be a division, everybody on their
side would have said, there's no way we'll do a deal," Schrempp was
quoted as saying. "But it's precisely what I wanted to do."

Almost immediately, Kerkorian assembled his war machine -- Christensen's
firm in Los Angeles; the New York law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris
Shriver & Jacobson; and the New York public relations firm Citigate Sard
Verbinnen. The lawsuit was prepared and filed 27 days later.

The wave of class-action suits following Kerkorian's lead don't alter the
dramatic showdown shaping up.

                         Financier calls shots

"Those are a sideshow," said Adam Pritchard, a securities-law professor
at the University of Michigan. "Even if the suits are consolidated by the
court, Kerkorian will be calling the shots."

And once Kerkorian moves, he isn't in a negotiating mode. On Monday
evening, a few hours after the suit was filed, a senior DaimlerChrysler
lawyer telephoned Aljian. The lawyer, Kerkorian's associates say, asked
if Schrempp could meet with Kerkorian to talk things over. The offer was
turned down flat. (The Detroit News, November 30, 2000)


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Germans Say Daimler Overpaid For Crasher
---------------------------------------------------------
    From IBD News Services FRANKFURT, Germany - Pressure on
DaimlerChrysler Chief Juergen Schrempp mounted on both sides of the
Atlantic Ocean Wednesday after German shareholders urged him to quit over
losses at Chrysler.

Criticism in Germany grew as two more lawsuits were filed against
DaimlerChrysler. Both sought class-action status and alleged that
shareholders had been deceived by the company's 1998 tie-up with
Chrysler, whose losses have triggered a slump in the group's share price
to all-time lows.

German and U.S. shareholders are attacking Schrempp for different
reasons. Germans believe he paid too much for Chrysler, while the
Americans are aghast at his admission that the link was conceived as a
takeover of Chrysler, not a merger of equals. 'Toilet Paper' Shares
U.S.-German tension came to the fore as a member of the group's
supervisory board said Chrysler shares would be "toilet paper" if Daimler
had not bought the company. And leading German newspapers blamed Chrysler
for the share-price slide. Helmut Lense, who represents employees on
DaimlerChrysler's supervisory board, described as immoral the $ 8 billion
lawsuit filed earlier this week against the group by U.S. billionaire
Kirk Kerkorian, DaimlerChrysler's third-largest shareholder. "Without the
tie-up, he could use his shares as toilet paper at best," Lense said. "I
think after the disaster at Chrysler and the consequences for German
shareholders that (Schrempp) should think seriously about resigning,"
said Reinhild Keitel, a leading member of Germany's Association for
Protection of Small Shareholders.

Seeking Schrempp's Ouster Economics professor Ekkehard Wenger, a leading
German shareholder activist and an outspoken critic of the 1998 merger of
Daimler-Benz and Chrysler Corp, added fuel to the fire. He said he
planned to call for the dismissal of Schrempp and supervisory board head
Hilmar Kopper, who represents DaimlerChrysler's biggest shareholder,
Deutsche Bank AG, at the next annual shareholders meeting. Klaus Nieding
of Germany's Association for Securities Investment, a shareholder rights
protection lobby, said Wenger's call would be premature, but agreed the
clock was ticking. "We need to wait a little longer. The next quarter
will be crucial," he said. "If Chrysler doesn't look good by then, it may
be better to have a miserable end rather than endless misery."

DaimlerChrysler sought to play down the U.S. lawsuits on Wednesday,
saying it did not expect to face extra costs. 'Merger Of Equals' "As we
view the Kerkorian case as totally unfounded, we see no reason to make
provisions," a company spokesman said. Kerkorian has accused the company
of presenting the original tie-up as a "merger of equals," though it
later admitted it was a takeover.

Sentiment on the stock has turned sour. It has lost a third of its value
since the Chrysler deal. Few industry experts or lawyers think the
lawsuits or motions will succeed, but they are a sign of increasing
pressure on Schrempp to turn around the ailing Chrysler unit quickly.
Cleaning House "The current news flow is problematic, and if Kerkorian's
case were to be accepted by the courts it could be disastrous," said
Trudbert Merkel, a fund manager at DEKA Deutsche
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft. Earlier this month, Schrempp fired James
Holden as head of Chrysler and sent in a team led by Dieter Zetsche, who
had run the group's commercial vehicles unit, to get it back on track.
Third-Quarter Deficit Chrysler turned in a third-quarter loss of $ 512
million.

The company acknowledged that the situation there is worse than expected,
but has not provided specifics. Some analysts question whether the group
will be back in the black in 2001. "The uncertainty is very bad for the
shares," said Pia-Christina Schulze, an analyst at Merck Finck & Co. "The
question is what and how many skeletons Zetsche will find in the
cupboard. Investors want to know if Chrysler is capable of being
restructured." (Investor's Business Daily, November 30, 2000)


ELECTRICITY SUPPLIERS: CA Plans to Present Strategy for Energy Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Gray Davis is expected Friday to reveal his plan for solving
California's energy crisis, and a lot of people think it's about time
someone did something.

Ever since the electricity market meltdown last summer, the question "Who
should fix this mess?" has prompted a display of finger-pointing among
government regulators, politicians, utility company executives, power
plant operators and others.

Consumers have waited months for someone -- anyone -- to rescue them.
Every other week, it seems, they have been buffeted by the threat of
blackouts and warnings that Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s rate freeze may
soon end, potentially exposing them to the kind of price increases that
clobbered San Diego this year.

Yet, so far, most of the parties with responsibility for protecting the
public have suggested that someone else is more responsible. Experts say
this behavior is, in part, a reflection of how complicated the energy
problem is.

But if it continues, impatient Californians may take matters into their
own hands: A consumer group Tuesday proposed a ballot measure that would
reverse much of what the Legislature did in 1996 when it deregulated
electricity sales.

"The most startling and shocking thing that deregulation has wrought is
the decentralization of authority" over electricity sales, said Nettie
Hoge of The Utility Reform Network in San Francisco. "The fragmentation
just facilitates their ability to duck. But also, people don't know what
to do."

John Nelson, a PG&E spokesman, said he believes most public and private
officials are trying hard to find a solution. Even so, "the huge
difficulty for everyone is that there is no silver bullet," he added. "No
one entity can come forward to say, 'Here is the way to fix it.'"

Davis has expressed interest in a variety of remedies, some of which
would require federal approval, according to sources who have met with
his aides. These range from confiscating the profits of power suppliers
and pushing for wholesale price caps throughout the West to letting him
appoint the boards of several key agencies and promoting energy
efficiency with government money. Davis also has considered calling a
special legislative session on energy issues. But it's unclear how much
of this might be announced.

Here is a look at the groups and individuals holding some authority over
California's energy system and what they have said so far about solving
the current crisis.

State regulators, utility firms and consumer groups have been counting on
help from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees
wholesale electricity transactions. They want it to order wholesale power
suppliers to refund their profits, which many people consider excessive,
although the companies insist they've done nothing wrong.

California authorities also have asked Congress for assistance, and some
federal lawmakers are talking tough. During federal hearings in
September, Rep. Bob Filner, D-Chula Vista, called the wholesalers
"criminals" because of what they were charging. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has
proposed beefing up the federal commission's power to order refunds.

But the commissioners say they lack the authority and evidence of
wrongdoing to demand reimbursements. So instead, they have advised
California on changes it should make to keep prices down.

As the federal commission discovered, the trouble in California is
figuring out which agency has responsibility for what.

One of its recommendations -- to speed approval of power plants here --
was sent on to the California Energy Commission because it oversees plant
permits. Another -- giving utility companies more leeway to buy
electricity months ahead of when it is used -- was forwarded to the
Public Utilities Commission, which oversees that.

More suggestions were directed at the California Independent System
Operator, which supervises most of the state's power grid, while others
went to the California Power Exchange, which oversees electricity sales.
Meanwhile, the federal recommendation to ease state restrictions on
power-plant pollutants went to yet another agency -- the California Air
Resources Board.

And to California's Electricity Oversight Board, a largely invisible
agency, the federal commission offered this advice: cease to exist
because you're not needed at all.

Since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hasn't yet found proof of
price-gouging to warrant refunds, others in California hope the state's
own investigators will. Among those looking are the Public Utilities
Commission, the Energy Oversight Board and the state attorney general.

But investigators with those agencies say they can't do their job without
help from the federal commission because power suppliers won't turn over
key financial data. As a result, the investigators have implored the
federal agency to order the firms to provide it.

Even as they attempt to rein in the profits of power companies by
imposing rate caps and making other adjustments, California officials are
desperately wooing the same companies to help solve the state's energy
nightmare.

Government officials reason that if they can persuade the companies to
build more power plants in California, the resulting increase in the
electricity supply will make prices plummet. But the companies are
playing hard to get, contending their decision to build here hinges on
how much profit the state will let them make.

An attractive business climate "is imperative if we are to move forward
with our power plant projects," Duke Energy Co. warned recently.

Many people also are seeking solutions from California's three major
utility firms, including PG&E. Critics have accused them of failing in
the summer to use what authority they had to buy relatively cheap
electricity in advance of its use, and they have urged the utilities to
do a better job of that in the future.

But PG&E wants help with a bigger problem: the $ 3.4 billion in
unexpected wholesale electricity bills that it incurred in the summer. If
federal and state regulators won't order wholesale power firms to refund
that money, PG&E wants consumers to bear the cost.

Because of the rate freeze, however, PG&E can't force consumers to pay
it. Several months ago, it asked state lawmakers to pass the bills on to
the public. That went nowhere. So now, PG&E has taken the request to the
Public Utilities Commission and to federal court.

In the absence of anyone who can assume clear leadership over the state's
problem, fingers increasingly are being pointed at consumers.

Since electricity consumption among California residents jumped 24
percent in June this year over the previous June, they're being asked to
conserve more, for one thing. Then there's that $ 3.4 billion that PG&E
wants them to pay. And once the rate freeze is declared over, which PG&E
wants to have happen by spring, experts say consumer bills will soar.

Two class-action lawsuits were filed this week in Southern California,
trying to force power suppliers to refund their profits. But short of
getting help from the courts or through the ballot initiative proposed
this week, many consumers are looking for protection from their elected
leaders, especially the state's chief executive in Sacramento.

Gray Davis may be California's most powerful public figure, but when it
has come to solving the power crisis in recent months, his political
juice has seemed sorely constrained.

That's not to say Davis hasn't been busy. He has called for studies,
issued executive orders, created a team of energy advisers and signed a
few laws intended to ease the problem, including one to speed
construction of new plants.

But lately the governor has been forced to spend a lot of time begging
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for help. And that strikes many
people -- including Davis -- as an unfortunate comment on the fractured
and sometimes incomprehensible division of authority presiding over
California's precarious energy future.

Given "the severe flaws" in the state's electricity markets, Davis
declared recently, decisions about how to fix them "must not be left to
technocrats that neither live in California nor are accountable to
Californians."

Whether California is ready for that challenge remains to be seen.

Even if Davis proposes new laws Friday, as is likely, he'll have to
depend on the Legislature to pass them. That means dumping much of the
problem back into the lap of lawmakers who created the deregulated system
in the first place.

Among those anxiously awaiting the governor's plan is Carl Wood, a Public
Utilities Commission member who was appointed by Davis. "I'm hoping that
it will provide a framework" for dealing with the crisis, Wood said. At
the same time, though, he said he fears the flaws in California's
electricity infrastructure will prove difficult to repair. Looking back
on the events of the past few months, Wood said, "I am very skeptical of
the ability of this market to work at all." (San Jose Mercury News,
November 30, 2000)


FERDINAND MARCOS: Zamora Criticized U.S. Judge for Terminating Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. federal judge was being unfair when he blamed the Philippine
president for the collapse of a $150 million settlement for victims of
human rights abuses, a senior presidential aide said.

The money is supposed to compensate people who suffered under the regime
of late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. But U.S. District Judge
Manuel Real terminated the settlement Tuesday at the request of the human
rights victims, who said the Philippine government had blocked the
transfer of funds from Swiss bank accounts to pay their claims.

Real blamed President Joseph Estrada in part for the settlement's
collapse. ''I think that is unfair,'' Presidential Executive Secretary
Ronaldo Zamora said of Real's statement. Zamora said the administration
sought approval of the proposed settlement with the government's
Sandiganbayan anti-graft court but was rejected. ''We can't do anything.
We cannot spend the money,'' he said in an interview with DZRH radio.

The Sandiganbayan has ruled that the money cannot be used by the Marcoses
to compensate the victims of human rights abuses. It says the money in
the Swiss accounts could not have been legally acquired by the Marcos
family and should go to the government.

Real's ruling restores a nearly $2 billion judgment handed down by a
Hawaii federal court jury in 1995 against the Marcos estate. Including
interest, that award now stands at $2.9 billion, attorneys for the human
rights victims said.

However, Real gave Marcos' widow, Imelda, a final chance to end the case
by paying the $150 million settlement plus $12 million in interest within
four months. Zamora said lawyers for Mrs. Marcos say she doesn't have the
money.

The class-action lawsuit by 9,539 Filipinos was filed against the Marcos
estate in 1986, the year Marcos was ousted in a popular revolt and fled
to Hawaii. He died there in 1989. The Hawaii court found the Marcos
estate liable for compensation for the torture, murder and disappearance
of thousands of dissidents who fought his rule. (AP Online, November 30,
2000)


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Belgian Speech Software Maker Files for Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Facing scrutiny on accounting irregularities and lawsuits from both sides
of the Atlantic, Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., a Belgian maker
of speech-recognition software, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in Delaware on Wednesday, November 29. The company's
Dictaphone division, a Connecticut-based rival that it bought earlier
this year, and L.& H. Holdings USA, a unit formed to own the recently
purchased Dragon Systems, also filed for protection.

Lernout & Hauspie also said it would seek similar protection in Belgium,
where it became a shining star of Europe's high-tech industry before
falling under the weight of suspected financial misconduct. Earlier this
month, the company said it would revise financial statements since 1998
because of "errors and irregularities" in accounting.

The company has $255.3 million in short-term loans, including more than
$200 million due by the end of March, and is burdened by long-term debt
of $234.3 million, according to the filing, made in United States
Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del. The company listed assets of $2.37
billion.

"This court-supervised process will enable us to focus on realizing the
enormous commercial potential of L.& H.'s considerable technology
resources, while continuing to investigate and remediate problems
emanating from the past," John Duerden, the president and chief
executive, said in a statement.

Within the last year, as its stock price soared above $70, Lernout &
Hauspie bought two leading American speech-recognition software makers,
Dictaphone and Dragon Systems. But Wednesday's bankruptcy filing
accelerated the company's long tumble from the top of the industry, which
included the recent resignation of its founders, Jo Lernout and Pol
Hauspie.

Lernout & Hauspie's shares were suspended indefinitely this month on
Easdaq, the European stock market, and on Nasdaq, where the price had
dropped below $7.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has begun an investigation into
the company's accounting practices and its revenues in South Korea, where
its sales jumped to $127 million for the first half of this year, from
only $1.2 million during the 1999 period.

Daniel Hart, the company's general counsel, said the discovery of "a very
significant cash shortfall on the balance sheet of the Korean subsidiary"
played a significant role in the decision to file for protection.

Earlier Wednesday, a group representing 14,000 minority shareholders in
Europe said it had asked a Belgian prosecutor to demand that the company
seek protection in commercial court to avoid bankruptcy.

Stonington Partners, which owned 96 percent of Dictaphone before its sale
to Lernout & Hauspie, filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court on
Monday, seeking to rescind the $511 million merger. Judith A.
Witterschein, general counsel for the New York-based investment firm,
said financial figures used in merger talks amounted to fraud.

Lernout & Hauspie also faces a federal class-action lawsuit in
Massachusetts on behalf of institutional and individual investors.

A person close to Lernout & Hauspie, who spoke on condition of anonymity,
said the company's new management arrived to find "a culture of secrecy,"
in which financial information was withheld not only from the public, but
from its own accountants.

"We intend to refer this matter to criminal authorities if we don't get
some pretty quick answers from prior management," the person said.

The founders could not be reached for comment in Belgium. Calls to the
company's American offices were referred to Lanny J. Davis, a former
special counsel for President Clinton hired by Lernout & Hauspie's new
management, who said the filing "represents this company's best chance to
clean up the mess" and allow the new team to build upon its technology.

Though the company is based in Ieper, Belgium, it decided to file for
bankruptcy protection in the United States because of the lawsuits here
and its holdings in Dictaphone, said Luc Despins, a partner with Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy of New York, which prepared the filing.

"We hope this Chapter 11 case gives this company the breathing room it
needs," Mr. Despins said.

Mr. Lernout and Mr. Hauspie founded the company in 1987 after learning of
a primitive version of voice recognition software in Asia. They bought
the rights to similar technology from Belgian scientists and brought them
into the company. Money was so tight that the founders canvassed rural
areas to sign up farmers as shareholders.

In 1993, AT&T bought a 5 percent stake for $5 million, giving the men
their first financial windfall. They took the company public on Nasdaq
two years later, and the price rose more than 40 percent on its first day
of trading. The men still own about 30 percent of the company.

Dictaphone, founded in 1888 by Alexander Graham Bell, gained fame for its
business dictating equipment before sales plunged as its technology
became obsolete. (The New York Times, November 30, 2000)


MILLER INDUSTRIES: Announces Dismissal of Shareholder Lawsuit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 27, 2000, Miller Industries, Inc. (NYSE: MLR) was notified
that the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia had entered summary judgment on November 20, 2000 in favor of the
Defendants, dismissing the securities class action lawsuit, relating to
events between November, 1996 and September, 1997, which has been
described in its prior public filings.

On November 21, 2000, the Company also was notified that the Tennessee
Supreme Court had denied Plaintiffs' Writ of Certiorari regarding the
affirmance by the Tennessee Court of Appeals of the dismissal of the
securities class action complaint in the Hamilton County, Tennessee
Chancery Court. That ruling terminated the shareholder suit brought at
the State Court level in Tennessee.

These favorable rulings dismiss all pending shareholder litigation
against the Company.

In granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Federal District
Court in Atlanta found that Plaintiff's allegations were without a
sufficient basis to present a legitimate issue for trial. The Court's
most recent order held that Plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence
relating to 5 of the 7 alleged accounting violations which had survived
Defendants' initial motion to dismiss in the Court's July, 1998 order. As
to the remaining 2 alleged accounting violations, the Court found that
the Company made no actionable statements or omissions.


MYLAN LABORATORIES: FTC OKs $100M Settlement in Drug Price Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission has approved a tentative $100 million
settlement of claims that Mylan Laboratories Inc. fixed prices of
anti-anxiety drugs widely used by senior citizens, the company said
Wednesday.

If approved, the settlement would be the largest in FTC history.

Attorneys general in 32 states and U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also
must approve the settlement.

Thirty-two states, the District of Columbia, patients and the federal
government filed lawsuits in 1998 accusing the Pittsburgh-based
pharmaceutical giant of illegally increasing prices for two tranquilizers
and cutting off competition. The drugs are used to treat Alzheimer's
disease and other ailments.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher said the company hiked the
price of clorazepate 3,000 percent in January 1998 and Lorazepam by 2,500
percent in March that year.

If finalized, the $100 million will be divided among the states,
including Pennsylvania, who sued Mylan. The money then will be used to
repay consumers and state agencies who paid the hiked prices for the
drugs.

Other states that sued include Texas, Alaska, California, Louisiana,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont.

The lawsuits alleged that Mylan cut off competition by striking an
exclusive agreement with Profarmaco S.R.L. in Milan, Italy, a crucial
supplier. The suits said other suppliers could not make enough of the
drugs for Mylan's competitors.

The company says the deal was intended to ensure Mylan's source of
ingredients would not be interrupted. (Washington, (AP), November 29,
2000)


NETMANAGE, INC: Schubert & Reed Files Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the action pending in the United States District Court For
the Northern District of California entitled Sucher v. Alon, et al., No.
98-17323, on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth
Circuit, Docket No. 98-17323 (the "Derivative Action"), have entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement to resolve the claims asserted therein.

Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, a hearing will be held on January 26, 2001 at
10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District
Court Judge, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the claims in the Derivative Action should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the application
of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the Derivative
Action should be approved; and (3) whether judgment should be entered,
dismissing the Derivative Action with prejudice as against all defendants
in the Derivative Action.

Contact: Schubert & Reed LLP, San Francisco Juden Justice Reed,
415/788-4220


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/pacificare/)announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:PHSY)
securities during the period between October 27, 1999 and October 10,
2000 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges PacifiCare and certain of its officers, directors
and one of its largest shareholders with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that PacifiCare's interim
results were false and materially misstated due to its failure to
properly record medical expenses, particularly its under-accrual of
incurred but not reported costs ("IBNR"). In order to inflate the price
of PacifiCare's stock, defendants caused the Company to falsely report
its results for Q3 1999, Q4 1999, Q1 2000 and Q2 2000 by misstating its
results through its deliberate under-accrual of medical expenses and its
reserves for doubtful accounts receivable, all of which resulted in
artificially inflating PacifiCare's earnings per share ("EPS").

The complaint further alleges that defendants misrepresented that the
revenues PacifiCare was reporting were consistent with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), which, together with defendants' false
representations that PacifiCare would post Q3 EPS of$1.90, operated to
artificially inflate the price of PacifiCare stock to a Class Period high
of $ 72-5/16 on June 16, 2000. While PacifiCare's shares were inflated,
defendants sold approximately$50,000,000 worth of PacifiCare stock. On
October 10, 2000, PacifiCare revealed that it was in fact suffering a
huge decline in revenues, was not posting EPS growth as earlier
represented, and contrary to defendants' repeated assurances, PacifiCare
was forced to reveal the problems it had been experiencing during the
Class Period in attempting to grow its business. This announcement caused
its stock price to drop to as low as $14-5/8 (or over $18 per share) on
record volume of 5.6 million shares on October 11, 2000, causing tens of
millions of dollars in damages to members of the Class.

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


PADUCAH GASEOUS: DOJ Wants More Time to Consider Whether to Join
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Justice Department has yet to decide whether to join a lawsuit
against the former operators of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and
federal prosecutors plan to ask for a fourth extension to the deadline
for making that decision.

Federal law requires the Justice Department to investigate claims raised
in whistleblower lawsuits that allege fraud against the government. The
department also has the option of joining such suits as a plaintiff and
sharing in any financial recovery.

Bill Campbell, an assistant to U.S. Attorney Steve Reed, said an
extension to March would be requested, the latest deadline for the
department to disclose its intentions. Three times previously, federal
prosecutors have asked for an extension to decide whether to join the
suit. The first came in July 1999, the second in November 1999 and the
third in April.

The lawsuit was filed under seal in U.S. District Court at Paducah in
June 1999. It alleged that two companies that ran the government's
uranium-separation plant for nearly 50 years covered up environmental
problems and health issues to obtain financial bonuses.

The amount of damages claimed has never been specified. But Joseph Egan,
a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the total could run into the tens of
millions of dollars.

The plaintiffs are three current or former plant workers and the
Washington-based environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council.
Damages are unclear because the plaintiffs do not know the full amount
the Department of Energy and its predecessors paid Union Carbide, Martin
Marietta and its successor, Lockheed Martin, to enrich uranium at the
plant and to monitor and protect the environment.

Federal authorities have conducted a detailed investigation into the
suit's allegations. Reed characterized the probe as "massive, in which we
have expended an extreme amount of time and resources." He said the
government would spend whatever was required to verify or disprove the
suit's claims.

Campbell said the government has interviewed several hundred people and
has reviewed a large number of the estimated 30 million pages of records.
He said he thinks the investigation is nearing the end. "It may seem like
it's taken a long time, but it's not unusual," Reed said of the
investigation. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, November 30,
2000)


PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Ballots Trucked to Florida Capital
---------------------------------------------------------
Helicopters speeding above a highway convoy. Bystanders gawking and
snapping photos. An unassuming truck driver/elections official getting
his 15 minutes of fame. With inevitable echoes of O.J. Simpson's
slow-speed Bronco ride, the freeway odyssey of a truckload of disputed
presidential ballots became a metaphor Thursday for a presidential
race-turned-public spectacle. The ballots were hauled from West Palm
Beach to the state capital, Tallahassee, where they were stored in a
courthouse vault. A judge will consider this weekend whether their
dimples, chads and punch holes should be examined anew.

The trip made for street theater - literally - as cameras chronicled the
truck's every move. ``I don't know if it compares to the white Bronco,
but it sure is funny,'' said John Harvey, 37, of Tallahassee, among 30
people watching as the truck backed into a courthouse garage.

Was it any wonder that the lunch break took place at a highway rest stop
not far from Disney World? Or that the route took the ballots over the
Ronald Reagan Turnpike? Or that the much-watched journey began with the
ballots stuck in rush hour traffic - much like the stuck-in-limbo
presidential race?

``Oh, my God. The whole world is watching!'' declared Lt. Jim Kersey,
driving the caravan's lead car.

Well, not quite.

But O.J. Simpson, now a Florida resident, couldn't resist tuning in.

``In my case it may have been a little more intriguing because people
didn't know what was going to happen,'' said Simpson of events six years
ago. ``Here they know the ballots are going to get to Tallahassee.''

Retired police officer Rodger England of Sorrento drove to a rest stop in
Ocala to get a glimpse of the yellow Ryder truck and its armada of escort
vehicles.

``It's history in the making,'' said England. ``It's something you gotta
see. This may turn out to be nothing, but then again it may be really
something.''

Gore was hoping for the latter. Hoping Leon County Judge N. Sanders Saul
would order that the ballots be recounted to see if Gore votes were
hidden among those previously rejected.

A second load of 600,000 ballots, from Miami-Dade County, were packed
into 82 boxes and stored on the 19th floor of the Miami's local
government building to await a similar trip north on Friday. Among the
ballots were 10,535 in dispute because they did not record a vote in the
presidential race.

But the spotlight Thursday belonged to the 462,000 ballots from Palm
Beach County, hauled north by driver Tony Enos, the county's voting
systems coordinator.

Even the caravan's lunchtime break at a highway rest stop attracted
attention, with Enos pausing to give a few interviews as he bought some
orange juice and bystanders posed for pictures with the truck. ``It's
going good - keeping two hands on the wheel,'' he reported.

Video coverage of the truck's eight-hour, 450-mile journey drew people to
the edges of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike and Interstate 75 and 10.
Spectators took pictures at rest stops and from bridges, and someone
draped a sign reading ``No Chad Zone'' from an overpass near Orlando.

Doris Hill, 74, of Birmingham, Ala., who posed for a photo at a rest
stop, expressed concern about when the election will end. ``They may have
to change the rules and leave Clinton in office until they get this
settled,'' she said. (Fla. (AP))


PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Fla. Republican Legislature Urges Special Session
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's Republican Legislature is ready to jump in and do what an
election so far hasn't been able to make George W. Bush president. Al
Gore's camp says the lawmakers could cause a constitutional crisis.

A legislative committee voted Thursday to recommend to state House and
Senate leaders that they call a special session ``as soon as
practicable'' to name Florida's presidential electors. Top lawmakers said
it would probably happen early next week. The vote brought a strong
reaction from Democrat Al Gore's running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who
said it was ``just wrong and sets a terrible precedent'' for other
states' lawmakers to meddle in future presidential elections.

``It threatens to put us into a constitutional crisis, which we are not
in now by any stretch of the imagination,'' Lieberman said. He accused
the Florida Legislature of trying to make an ``end run'' around the
election.

Republicans say the U.S. Constitution allows them to step in because the
legal wrangling over who won Florida could drag past the Dec. 12 deadline
for naming voters to the Electoral College, putting in jeopardy the
state's participation.

Democrats challenge that notion, saying the state has certified Bush the
winner and the only thing that could put that in question would be if
Gore won his court challenge.

Bush, asked in Texas about the situation, said simply: ``I've won three
counts and I think it's time to get some finality to the process.'' House
Speaker Tom Feeney and Senate President John McKay would have to call for
a special session and could do so as early as Friday. The session could
begin Monday, but staff members said Tuesday was more likely.

Bush's younger brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, was still holding out the
possibility that Gore's court challenges might be settled in the
Republicans' favor, making legislative intervention moot. ``I don't
believe it should be done unless there is uncertainty,'' Jeb Bush said.
``If this could be cleared prior to Dec. 12 then, clearly, the
Legislature doesn't have to act.'' But he said he was willing to sign
into law a bill creating a slate of electors ``if the bill is
acceptable.'' ``I can't recuse myself from my constitutional duties as
governor of the state and I can't recuse myself, frankly, of being my
brother's brother either,'' Bush said.

Meanwhile, both candidates turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican
Bush defending the lawmakers' power to get involved and Gore challenging
it. ``It is not self-evident that such direct legislative appointment is
even available'' under federal law, Gore's lawyers argued. But Bush's
lawyers said in their filing that ``the Constitution specifically assigns
the power to determine the manner of appointing presidential electors to
the state legislature.''

Republicans outnumber Democrats 102-58 in the Legislature and Democrats
accused them of charging into a session to protect Bush's 537-vote win in
Florida from the possibility that Gore would be found in a legal contest
to have won.

Republicans were trying to decide if they needed to actually pass a bill
that Jeb Bush would be required to sign. They were studying the legality
of using a resolution that wouldn't have to be signed by the governor to
name the electors. If the leaders do call the special session, it would
take a minimum of five days under normal Senate and House rules, although
if Republicans could muster enough votes, they could waive some of those
rules and speed the process. If they decide to pass a resolution, rather
than a bill, that could also speed the process by a day. But Democrats
could slow things with amendments and with lengthy debate, although there
are rules that limit the time of debate in both chambers.

The committee's recommendation for a special session came on a straight
party-line vote.

Florida's lawmakers directly chose the state's electors once before, in
1868, when the Reconstruction Republican Legislature voted for Republican
Ulysses S. Grant. At the time, Florida was occupied by federal troops in
the wake of the Civil War. The only time since then that any legislature
has selected electors was in 1876 in Colorado. (Tallahassee, Fla. (AP))


PSINet INC: Files Motions to Dismiss Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
PSINet Inc. (Nasdaq:PSIX), announced on November 29 that it has filed
motions to dismiss 15 purported class action complaints alleging
violations of securities laws by the company and certain of its senior
officers and directors that had been filed since November 3, 2000.

In its motions, PSINet stated that all of the complaints fall within the
category of claims that Congress clearly prohibited under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and therefore should be
dismissed.

The company says that the rapidity with which the complaints were filed,
along with the repetition of obvious typographical and factual errors,
demonstrates that plaintiffs and their counsel made their claims without
engaging in reasonable investigation or factual inquiry before asserting
claims that are simply untrue.


QUINTUS CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Expands Lawsuit over Mustang.com Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2000, Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action
against Quintus Corporation (Nasdaq: QNTS) and certain of its senior
officers. The class action was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. Based on new developments, Wolf
Popper filed an amended complaint extending the class period back to
January 19, 2000, and asserting additional claims on behalf of those who
acquired Quintus securities in the merger with Mustang.com, Inc.

On November 15, 2000, Quintus announced that it had delayed filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2000, pending completion of the investigation of
revenue and accounts receivable for that period and earlier periods. The
company also announced that the chief executive officer of Quintus had
been placed on "administrative leave" by the Company's Board of
Directors.

On November 22, 2000, Quintus announced that "revenue was improperly
recognized for three transactions with respect to which the company
relied on falsified documentation." The three transactions included (i)
revenues of approximately $4.5 million, which were improperly recognized
in the quarter ending December 31, 1999; (ii) revenues of approximately
$2 million, which were improperly recognized in the quarter ending June
30, 2000; and (iii) revenues of approximately 7 million, which were
improperly recognized in the quarter ending September 30, 2000. The
Company also announced that it had terminated its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Alan Anderson, "for cause." Based on these new
developments, Wolf Popper filed an amended complaint on behalf of those
who: (i) acquired Quintus securities in the merger of Mustang.com, Inc.
into Quintus, which closed on May 18, 2000 or (ii) purchased Quintus
common stock on the open market during the period January 19, 2000
through November 14, 2000.

Contact: Carl L. Stine of WOLF POPPER LLP, 212-451-9668, 212-451-9642,
212-451-9625, or toll free, 877-370-7703, IRRep@wolfpopper.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appellate Court Affirms Denial of Geiger Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A New York state appellate court has affirmed denial of class-action
status for a lawsuit that had been filed against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company and other cigarette manufacturers.

The lawsuit against cigarette manufacturers was filed by the estate of
Anita Geiger and other plaintiffs in 1997. The plaintiffs had sought
class certification for New York state residents who were alleged to have
contracted lung and throat cancer as a result of cigarette smoking. An
appellate court in the state of New York (Second Judicial Department) has
now upheld the decision made by a trial judge in Queens, N.Y., in June
1999 to deny class- action certification for the lawsuit.

In its ruling, the appellate court stated: "The purportedly common issues
proposed by the plaintiffs in their complaint are actually dependent on
the resolution of issues such as addiction and causation as to each
individual member of the proposed class. Issues of causation must be
resolved on a case- by-case basis, and thus, the difficult questions of
causation and the extent of injuries weigh against class action treatment
... even if there are common issues in this case, those issues do not
predominate."

"The court's decision is very sensible, and consistent with the facts of
the case and the law," said Daniel W. Donahue, senior vice president and
deputy general counsel of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. "With very limited
exceptions, courts have rejected smoker class-action lawsuits. Every
smoker's circumstances are unique. Class actions are not appropriate for
litigating claims by groups of people who each have different personal
smoking and medical histories. This decision and many other similar
rulings show that most courts recognize that a class action by smokers
claiming damages for alleged injuries should not be certified."

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: RJR). R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company is the second-largest tobacco company in the United States,
manufacturing about one of every four cigarettes sold in the United
States. Reynolds Tobacco's product line includes four of the nation's 10
best-selling cigarette brands: Winston, Camel, Salem and Doral. For more
information, visit the company's web site at www.rjrt.com.

Source: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company


TRILOGY SOFTWARE: TX Court Prohibits Tender Offer for pcOrder.com, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trilogy Software, Inc. and pcOrder.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: PCOR) jointly
announced that in connection with a lawsuit filed on November 28, 2000, a
Texas state court issued a temporary restraining order that prohibits
them from proceeding with Trilogy's cash tender offer to acquire all of
pcOrder's outstanding Class A common stock at a price of $6.375 per
share. Trilogy, pcOrder and the individual members of the pcOrder Board
of Directors are named as defendants in the action. The order was issued
on an ex parte basis and the defendants in the action were not notified
that an application had been made to the court for a temporary
restraining order and the defendants were not provided with an
opportunity to contest the application. The lawsuit and the order have
been served on pcOrder.

The order restrains until December 12, 2000, or further order of the
court, Trilogy, pcOrder and the directors from proceeding with the merger
agreement between Trilogy and pcOrder, proceeding with the tender offer
by Trilogy for the purchase of pcOrder shares or consummating the tender
offer by Trilogy. The order further provides for a hearing on the
plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction on December 12, 2000.

Trilogy and pcOrder intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Including this latest lawsuit, three purported class action lawsuits have
been filed in Texas District Court to date with respect to the tender
offer and merger. The defendants have removed one of these actions to
Federal court. Five cases had been filed in Delaware Chancery Court, but
they subsequently were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.


UNISYS CORP: Securities Suit Will Continue, E.D. Pa. Says
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Clarence J. Newcomer of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania refused to dismiss a shareholder class action lodged against
Unisys Corp. and its principals, finding that the plaintiffs had
sufficiently pleaded a motive on behalf of the company to make fraudulent
misrepresentations regarding contracts with private industry and the
federal government. In re Unisys Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 00-1849
(E.D. Pa., Sept. 21, 2000).

The action, brought on behalf of all purchasers of common stock in the
information-technology concern between May and October 1999, also named
President/CEO/Chairman Larry Weinbach; Vice President--Investor Relations
Jack McHale; and former Executive Vice President--Global Customer
Services Gerald Gagliardi, who left Unisys concurrent with the
third-quarter 1999 disclosures.

The complaint says that on May 4, 1999, the defendants disseminated
knowingly false and misleading statements concerning Unisys' entry into
long-time service contracts with British Telecommunications (five years,
$200 million estimated revenue) and the U.S. General Services
Administration (10 years, $445 million estimated revenue). The following
July 15, Unisys announced a 58 percent increase in second-quarter
earnings per share and 9 percent revenue growth, and attributed such in
part to the BT and GSA contracts.Unisys' share price averaged $37 to $50
during the class period, up from $31.875 on May 3, 1999. On Oct. 14,
1999, the company disclosed its third-quarter revenues. Weinbach
attributed the failure to meet expectations in part on delays in
performance on the BT and GSA contracts and failure to be competitive on
contract bids. Unisys' share price fell to $22 by Oct. 19, and has yet to
recover to the levels reached during the class period.

The class complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that
the contracts with BT and GSA were subject to contingencies and
regulatory approvals. Further, the shareholders contend that the GSA
contract did not commit the government to utilize Unisys' services, but
only to be retained as one of 12 contractors that could be chosen for
work upon a competitive bid. Further, the plaintiffs plead the existence
of motivational and circumstantial evidence to support their allegations
of fraudulent intent. They asserted that the defendants sought to inflate
the stock price so as to entice its preferred shareholders to take a
stock-for-stock conversion for their upcoming dividend, rather than a
cash payout estimated at $1 billion. A second motive for inflating the
stock price was ascribed to Unisys' June 1999 stock-for-stock acquisition
of the software developer PulsePoint. PulsePoint's shareholders were to
have received $6.60 worth of Unisys stock under the merger agreement, the
plaintiffs asserted, and the inflated stock price minimized the number of
shares to be delivered. Lastly, the plaintiffs pointed to the fact that
Gagliardi and McHale dumped a significant amount of their own Unisys
holdings by August 1999.

Judge Newcomer found these allegations sufficient to avoid dismissal
under the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
"The Court is not persuaded that defendants' statements were forward
looking," he wrote. "Here, plaintiffs plead particularized factual
allegations that defendants' knew that defendants' revenue estimates were
false and misleading when made." (Government Contract Litigation
Reporter, October 26, 2000)


                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, DC. Theresa Cheuk, Managing Editor.

Copyright 1999.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.


                    * * *  End of Transmission  * * *