/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010406.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, April 6, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 68


ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Agrees in Principle To Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Fed Subsidized Tenants Sue Private Co for 3rd Time
BRIDGEPORT POLICE: Enjoined from Interfering With Syringe Exchange
HARRIS SCARFE: Adelaide Law Firm to Launch Securities Lawsuit
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Parliament Calls On US Courts To Dismiss Suits

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: US Court Rebuffs Bid To Free Payouts To Nazi Victims
IL DCFS: Center Operator Fears Unfounded Allegations of Child Caretakers
KIMBERLEY ET AL: Firefox Investors Seek to Reintstate Charges Again
MERRILL LYNCH: Lovell & Stewart and Sirota & Sirota File Securities Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Cert. of Antitrust Suit

NEW CENTURY: Clarifies FTC Probe and OH Suit over Home Improvement Scam
OLD CLEVELAND BROWNS: Settlement with Ticket-Holders May Benefit Youths
RACIAL PROFILING: NJ Attorney General Says Better Data Led to Admission
THINK NEW: Discovery Goes on for Consolidated Securities Suits in NY
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Trial Winds Up For Flight Attendant; Mistrial Denied

TRIARC COMPANIES: Shareholder's Claims Too Weak to Derail Settlement
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Settlement Hearing Re Seagate Merger Suit Set for Apr.


ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Agrees in Principle To Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
Analytical Surveys, Inc., (ASI) (Nasdaq: ANLT), a provider of customized
data conversion and digital mapping services for the geographic
information systems (GIS) market, on April 5 announced that it has
entered into an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated, class
action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its former officers.
The proposed settlement provides for the dismissal of the consolidated
action in its entirety against all defendants and the establishment of a
settlement fund of $4 million, of which the Company is contributing
$100,000, and approximately 1,250,000 shares of the Company's common
stock for the class of open market purchasers of the Company's shares
between January 25, 1999, and March 7, 2000, inclusive. The agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs is subject to various conditions, including
execution of a Memorandum of Understanding and Stipulation of Settlement,
preliminary approval by the Court, notice to the class and final approval
by the Court after a hearing.

Analytical Surveys provides customized data conversion, digital mapping
and consulting services for the spatial data markets. Geospatial data is
used for a variety of applications, including the creation of geographic
information systems (GIS). A GIS is a high-resolution, large-scale,
richly detailed "intelligent map" that allows users to input, update,
query, analyze and display detailed information about a geographic area.
Geographic information systems are widely used by utilities, state and
local governments, federal agencies and commercial businesses to manage
massive infrastructures effectively, to improve operating efficiencies
and to analyze future demand for facilities. The Company's traditional
markets have been utilities and state and local governments.

APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Fed Subsidized Tenants Sue Private Co for 3rd Time
of a federally subsidized apartment complex in Hunters Point filed a
third lawsuit this week against the private company that owns the
properties, alleging poor maintenance has resulted in toxic molds and
other safety risks.

The class-action case against Apartment Investment and Management Co. was
filed in San Francisco Superior Court by two residents associations
representing the 700 tenants in the Shoreview and LaSalle apartment

Dorothy Peterson, president of the Shoreview Residents Association, said
the suit also accused the Denver company of intentionally allowing the
property to fall into disrepair so it would have to be torn down and
replaced with newer buildings that could be rented out at higher rates.

A recent inspection found "major conditions threatening life and safety
requiring immediate correction," according to the lawsuit.

Company representatives could not be reached for comment but previously
have said they are trying to fix the problems and have spent nearly $10
million on repairs in the past two years. (The San Francisco Chronicle,
April 5, 2001)

BRIDGEPORT POLICE: Enjoined from Interfering With Syringe Exchange
A federal court judge has issued an order permanently enjoining police
officers in Bridgeport, Conn., from arresting or interfering with
participants in a state-sanctioned syringe exchange program designed to
slow the spread of HIV and AIDS among intravenous drug users. Doe et al.
v. Bridgeport Police Department et al., No. 3:00-CV-2167 (JCH), order
filed (D. Conn., Jan. 18, 2001).

The order by Judge Janet C. Hall approves the creation of a
constitutional-rights class action against the Bridgeport Police
Department on behalf of the city's needle and syringe users. It also
prohibits police there from "search ing, stopping, arresting, punishing
or penalizing in any way" anyone participating in the Bridgeport Syringe
Exchange Program.

The order immunizes from prosecution participants found in possession of
up to 30 syringe/needle sets, and applies to both sterile and used
devices that may still contain illegal drug residue.

The permanent injunction follows a temporary restraining order obtained
on behalf of plaintiffs "John Doe" and "John Roe" on Nov. 15. Both had
complained that despite carrying identification cards indicating their
status as participants in the needle exchange program, Bridgeport police
harassed and threatened to arrest them.

In an affidavit, Doe said that Bridgeport police have "constantly
interfered" with his ability to use the exchange and on several occasions
ordered him to hand over the clean injection equipment he had just
received, and then broke them.

Roe said he was arrested by Bridgeport officers last October for
possession of drug paraphernalia and narcotics possession, and jailed for
a week before prosecutors dropped the charges. He said that although he
offered to show the officers his exchange identification card when he was
initially stopped, the offer was re buffed. Doe apparently did not
attempt to show arresting officers his card.

Judge Hall approved the class of "all injecting drug users, present and
future, in Connecticut," rejecting the Bridgeport Police Department's
claim that such a class would be too broad and violate the intent of the
legislation which created the state's needle exchange, Conn. Gen. Stat. @
@ 21a-240(20)(A)(IX) and 19a-124.

She said that the class, as proposed, meets the federal class
certification requirements outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(A)(1-4) for
numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation.

In their request for class certification and a permanent injunction, the
plaintiffs argued that because the possession of less than 31 sterile or
used hypodermic sy ringes or needles is legal in Connecticut, arrests
made solely based on possession, such as those being carried out in
Bridgeport, violate the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from illegal
searches and seizures. "The fact that some injecting drug users are
active participants in the exchange while others are not does not alter
this analysis." (AIDS Litigation Reporter, February 26, 2001)

HARRIS SCARFE: Adelaide Law Firm to Launch Securities Lawsuit
Harris Scarfe Legal ADELAIDE, April 5 AAP - Disgruntled Harris Scarfe
shareholders have been invited to join a class action being planned by an
Adelaide law firm.

Duncan Basheer Hannon partner Peter Humphries said it appeared
shareholders had been misled by statements made by directors of the

"The directors of Harris Scarfe have acknowledged serious financial
irregularities over an extended period of years," Mr Humphries said in a

"Shareholders are entitled to rely upon the company's annual reports
signed off by both the directors and auditors and any losses suffered by
shareholders may well give rise to a claim for compensation."

The department store chain appointed voluntary administrators after
accounting irregularities were discovered by auditors called in by the

The board of directors said it was totally unaware of the accounting
irregularities, adding that the company's accounts had been sanctioned by
auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers on at least three occasions in the past
15 months.

But Mr Humphries said the public was yet to hear from the senior
management, which has been blamed for the financial irregularities.

"It will be interesting to see whether their views and those of the
auditors who obviously failed to detect the problems agree with the
directors' explanations," he said.

"It appears that there may have been misleading and deceptive statements
communicated to the shareholders and the public.

"If that information influenced the purchase of shares or the decisions
of shareholders to retain shares in Harris Scarfe there is very likely to
be a successful claim."

Duncan Basheer Hannon called on shareholders who suffered losses as a
result of being misled to contact them on (08) 8273 6300. (AAP Newsfeed,
April 5, 2001)

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Parliament Calls On US Courts To Dismiss Suits
A wide majority of lawmakers in the German parliament appealed Thursday
to U.S. judges to dismiss cases against German companies by Nazi-era
slave laborers so Germany's foundation can begin payments to victims as
soon as possible.

Citing the advanced age of the survivors, the parliament said in a
resolution it has ''deep concern'' that legal security still hasn't been
established for German firms the condition required by the companies as
well as parliament for payments to begin.

Class-action lawsuits spurred German industry into negotiations to
establish the 10 billion mark (dlrs 4.6 billion) fund with government,
but the legal impasse has delayed payments to an estimated 1 million
elderly victims, mostly from eastern Europe.

The parliament said in its resolution that legal security wasn't likely
in the foreseeable future.

''The German parliament stands before a politically, legally and morally
difficult decision'' concerning the determination of whether sufficient
legal security exists for German firms, the resolution said.

The one party not joining the resolution, the former East German
communists, proposed their own stronger version calling on industry to
transfer its 50 percent share of the fund immediately so victims can
receive payments before the summer.

The fund's leadership rejected calls to begin payments early before all
lawsuits are dismissed and also appealed to U.S. judges to throw out the
lawsuits. (AP Worldstream, April 5, 2001)

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: US Court Rebuffs Bid To Free Payouts To Nazi Victims
An urgent effort by a lawyer to pressure a federal appeals court to
intervene in a case he says is blocking payouts to more than 1 million
former slave laborers under the Nazis was quietly rebuffed.

The Second US Circuit Court of Appeals did not grant lawyer Burt
Neuborne's request for oral arguments in an appeal of US District Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram's refusal to dismiss a class-action lawsuit stemming
from the Holocaust.

Neuborne said the lawsuit stands in the way of payouts to elderly
Holocaust victims.

The judge said she had to reject a request to dismiss the lawsuit for a
second time because lawyers still had not resolved how those victims not
yet identified could be protected if they decided to make claims. (The
Jerusalem Post, April 5, 2001)

IL DCFS: Center Operator Fears Unfounded Allegations of Child Caretakers
Maria Rosa Salazar says she fears scores of unfounded allegations of
child abuse made by the state's child-welfare agency have had a chilling
effect on child caretakers.

Child-care employees shy away from any show of affection, in the process
perhaps hurting children's emotional development, Salazar said.

"I'm afraid myself," Salazar, operator of a day-care center in Oak Park
and founder of Latin American Professionals in Child Care and Education,
told reporters. "I'm afraid it's affecting the children."

Salazar made her comments at a news conference called by plaintiffs who
won a court victory in a class-action federal lawsuit challenging how the
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services investigates
allegations of child abuse and neglect.

In issuing a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Rebecca
Pallmeyer ruled that DCFS procedures were unconstitutional and too often
led to false accusations of wrongdoing against child caretakers.

She ordered the system revamped and gave DCFS 60 days to come up with a

At the news conference, day-care operators and parents told horror
stories of how unfounded allegations of child abuse have devastated their

Several of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses who testified at a trial in
1999 -- Salazar among them -- also detailed DCFS' alleged shortcomings.

Plaintiffs in the class-action suit include child-care employees, foster
parents, social workers and family members found guilty of child abuse or
neglect by DCFS but later exonerated.

According to evidence presented at the trial, three-fourths of the
child-care employees who appealed findings of abuse or neglect filed by
DCFS were cleared of wrongdoing, though sometimes not until years later.

Noting that the judge based her ruling on evidence from two years ago,
Carolyn Cohran Kopel, chief of staff for DCFS, said many improvements
have been made since then.

Appeals of findings of abuse or neglect don't languish any longer, Kopel
said. Since a change in rules last June, appeals must be heard within 90
days, she said.

In her ruling, Pallmeyer said she was aware of the change but had no
evidence of whether DCFS was adhering to the 90-day limit.

According to Kopel, DCFS records show that new appeals were closed in an
average of 48 days in the last seven months of 2000.

Kopel also said many of the findings of abuse or neglect are eventually
overturned because the appeals process requires a higher burden of proof.

DCFS has yet to decide if it will appeal the judge's ruling, but Kopel
said the decision could lead to some children being left unprotected from
abuse or neglect.

Diane L. Redleaf, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said DCFS doesn't err
on the side of children.

"It errs on the side of error, and that has the effect of hurting
children," Redleaf said. "You don't protect the children if you find the
wrong people" guilty of abuse or neglect, she said.

Ellen Onken's voice cracked with emotion as she told reporters how
allegedly false accusations of sexual molestation had been made against
her son by another student.

"This has been going on for 4 1/2 years," said the Arlington Heights

Eventually, DCFS backed away from its allegations, but criminal charges
remain, she said. (Chicago Tribune, April 5, 2001)

KIMBERLEY ET AL: Firefox Investors Seek to Reintstate Charges Again
The landmark Silicion Graphics decision only clarified -- rather than
overturned -- Ninth Circuit guidelines regarding the level of supporting
detail required for securities fraud charges to survive a motion to
dismiss, Firefox Communications Inc. shareholders argued to a federal
appeals court in San Francisco. Plaintiffs again asked the panel to
reinstate their charges that Firefox officers inflated sales and revenue
figures to mislead investors. Zeid et al. v. Kimberley et al., No.
00-16089, brief filed (9th Cir., Jan. 26, 2001).

In their second trip to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit,
Firefox shareholders argued that a federal judge erred when he reviewed
his earlier dismissal of the case and concluded there was nothing in the
court's Silicon Graphics ruling to make him change his mind. In re
Silicon Graphics Secs. Litig. , 183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir., 1999). The
company and its officers urged the court to uphold dismissal of the
securities fraud suit for failure to satisfy Silicon Graphics' exacting
pleading standards (see Corporate Officers & Directors Liability LR ,
Jan. 15, 2001, P. 4).

The defendants argue that under the Ninth Circuit's reading of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the federal judge
correctly found that plaintiffs failed to identify the alleged sham sales
that purportedly fooled the Internet software company's investors. The
plaintiffs maintain that despite the panel's instructions to the lower
court in an earlier appeal -- when the appeals court vacated the earlier
dismissal so that the judge could review his decision in light of the
Silicon Graphics ruling -- the judge again ignored specifics in the
complaint that identified alleged false statements and their authors (see
related story, Corporate Officers & Directors Liability LR, Sept. 13,
1999, P. 12).

Firefox develops, markets and supports Internet software. The case was
brought as a class action alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act against the company and certain of its officers
and directors, including chief executive officer John Kimberley, chief
financial officer Mark Rowlinson and John Richardson, president of a
Firefox subsidiary.

Plaintiffs, led by Richard Zeid, filed a complaint in February 1996
alleging Firefox and its top three executives, who collectively owned 30
percent of the company's stock, made false statements to artificially
inflate the stock price because they were trying to sell the company.

The lower court, in its original ruling, sided with Firefox executives,
who assert that the Reform Act requires complaints in Section 10(b)
actions to state all facts on which plaintiffs base any allegations
pleaded on information and belief. In the case's first trip to the Ninth
Circuit, the plaintiffs argued that the lower court had demanded more
specificity than any federal court had required.

While that appeal was pending, the court decided Silicon Graphics . The
panel reviewing the first appeal in the instant case vacated the lower
court decision so that the judge could evaluate his ruling in light of
that landmark opinion.

After doing so, the lower court again dismissed the suit because the
judge found that nothing in the Silicon Graphics ruling affected his
earlier decision.

The plaintiffs are currently appealing that ruling, arguing that even
under the Ninth Circuit's strict interpretation of the exacting pleading
standards of the Reform Act, the complaint should survive. The alle
gations detail exactly how the financial statements were misleading and
who made them, but they do not and should not have to -- detail exactly
which sales transactions were recognized early, plaintiffs argue.

Defendants counter that the Reform Act demands "all facts in great
detail" and "corroborating details" or "sources" of the allegations. The
lower court correctly determined that plaintiffs have not supplied the
particularized facts that would support a strong inference of deliberate
recklessness, the appellees contend.

In their reply brief in support of the current appeal, the shareholders
argue that Silicon Graphics did not overturn the standards the Ninth
Circuit has been using for years in securities fraud cases -- it only
clarified them. Pre-Reform Act rulings of the Ninth Circuit and the
federal judges in that jurisdiction required plaintiffs to allege
particularized facts in support of their allegations, and that standard
was simply codified by Silicon Graphics, the plaintiffs maintain. Some
defense lawyers have read that decision to require that each source for
each allegation be identified by name and title, but Silicon Graphics did
not, and could not, require such a thing, the shareholders say.

"Requiring plaintiffs' lawyers to reveal their investigative sources
would often intrude into work product," they complain. "Although the
identity of persons having knowledge of relevant facts may ultimately be
discoverable, the work-product doctrine requires courts to draw a
distinction between asking the identity of persons with knowledge --
which is clearly permissible -- and asking the identity of persons
contacted and/or interviewed during an investigation, which is not."

Firefox is represented by Shirli Fabbri Weiss, Robert W. Brownlie,
Kathryn E. Karcher and Mark H. Hamer of Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich in
San Diego.

Zeid is represented by William S. Lerach, Leonard B. Simon, Eric A.
Isaacson, Kimberly C. Epstein and Joseph D. Daley of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach in San Diego; Richard Bemporad and William J. Ban
of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger in White Plains, N.Y.; and Daniel
W. Krasner of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York.
(Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter, February
26, 2001)

MERRILL LYNCH: Lovell & Stewart and Sirota & Sirota File Securities Suit
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP ((212) 608-1900 or
www.lovellstewart.com) and Sirota & Sirota, LLP ((212) 425-9055 or
www.sirotalaw.com) filed a class action lawsuit on April 4, 2001 on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased B2B Internet HOLDRS
depositary receipts (AMEX:BHH) between February 23, 2000 and April 4,
2001, inclusive. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks to recover damages.

The action, Claude Amsellem v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (500 Pearl Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 01-CV-2858
(GEL) and has been assigned to the Hon. Gerard E. Lynch, U.S. District
Judge. The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling B2B Internet HOLDRS depositary receipts pursuant to
the February 23, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that a
substantial proportion of the stocks in the B2B Internet HOLDRS trust's
initial portfolio of stocks was composed of stocks whose prices had been
manipulated via "laddering" schemes.

The complaint alleges (and the Prospectus for the IPO of B2B Internet
HOLDRS disclosed) that initial portfolio "weighting" of the B2B Internet
HOLDRS trust included Internet Capital Group, Inc. (19.2%) and Ariba,
Inc. (18.75%), two companies for which Merrill Lynch had served as lead
underwriter at the times of their respective initial public offerings, as
well as eight other companies whose initial public offerings were
underwritten by Merrill Lynch. Together, the stocks of these companies
underwritten by Merrill comprised well over half of the B2B HOLDRS
trust's initial portfolio.

What was not disclosed to investors, the complaint alleges, was that
Merrill and other underwriters of some stocks in the B2B Internet HOLDRS
trust's portfolio allocated shares to customers at the IPO prices in
exchange for the customers' agreements to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement that
customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the
prices of the stocks rocketed upward in the aftermarket (a practice known
on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive the stock
prices up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation
enabled both the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous
profits by buying stock at the IPO price and then selling it later for a
profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep all of their trading profits
from the IPOs, the complaint alleges, Merrill Lynch and other
underwriters required their customers to "kick back" some of their
profits in the form of secret commissions. These secret commission
payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based on how much
profit each investor had made from his or her allocation of stock in a
particular IPO.

The complaint also alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration
Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the
B2B Internet HOLDRS offering contained material misstatements regarding
the commissions that Merrill Lynch would receive in connection with the
IPO and the fact that stocks in the B2B Internet HOLDRS portfolio had
been manipulated via the types of "laddering" schemes discussed above.

Investors who purchased B2B Internet HOLDRS during the period February
23, 2000 and April 4, 2001, inclusive may contact Sirota & Sirota or
Lovell & Stewart at the telephone numbers, addresses or E-mail addresses
below for more information regarding the class action lawsuit. Investors
can also visit Sirota & Sirota's website at www.sirotalaw.com or Lovell &
Stewart's website at www.lovellstewart.com to view a copy of the

Contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP Christopher Lovell or Victor E. Stewart or
Christopher J. Gray 212/608-1900 sklovell@aol.com or Sirota & Sirota, LLP
Howard B. Sirota or Saul Roffe, 212/425-9055 info@sirotalaw.com

MICROSOFT CORP: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Cert. of Antitrust Suit
Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, LLP Announces Class Certification in Antitrust
Case Against Microsoft in Minnesota

Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP is pleased to announce the certification of
a class of Minnesota consumers who allege that Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT)
violated Minnesota's antitrust laws by illegally creating and maintaining
a monopoly in the computer operating system market, resulting in an
overcharge. The case is Gordon v. Microsoft Corporation, File No.
00-5994, pending before Judge Bruce A. Peterson in the Minnesota Fourth
Judicial District for the County of Hennepin. Plaintiffs are represented
by the Kirby firm of New York and Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Gette of

Plaintiffs' counsel, together with Lieff Cabraser Hyman & Bernstein,
Barnow & Goldberg, and Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, also
represent purchasers of Microsoft's products in antitrust cases pending
in a number of other states.

Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP specializes in complex litigation,
including antitrust and securities class actions, and repeatedly has
demonstrated its expertise in these fields. More information about the
firm can be obtained by visiting www.kmslaw.com.

Contact: Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP Joanne Cicala, 212/317-2300 Toll
Free: 888/529-4787 jcicala@kmslaw.com

NEW CENTURY: Clarifies FTC Probe and OH Suit over Home Improvement Scam
New Century Financial Corporation (Nasdaq: NCEN) clarified the status of
two legal matters discussed in the Company's recently filed Form 10-K.
Management believes that both matters will be resolved without any
material adverse impact on the Company's operations, financial condition
and business prospects.

In August 2000, the Company received an inquiry from the Federal Trade
Commission. The Company believes, based on the FTC's document requests,
that the inquiry relates to the pre-approved credit solicitations that
the Company mails to potential customers. The Company has been
cooperating fully with the FTC, and believes that its practices have
complied with applicable law and prudent industry practices.

In October 2000, the Company was added as a defendant in an Ohio class
action lawsuit that had been previously filed against various home
improvement contractors and mortgage brokers. The factual claims involve
an alleged home improvement scam. The claims against New Century assert
that it violated a variety of lending laws. The Company believes these
claims do not have merit. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss those
claims, and the plaintiffs have moved for permission to amend their
complaint once again. The Company intends to renew its motion to dismiss
and continue to vigorously defend itself in this action.

New Century Financial Corporation is a specialty finance company that,
through its subsidiaries, originates, purchases, sells, and services
mortgage loans secured primarily by first mortgages on single family

OLD CLEVELAND BROWNS: Settlement with Ticket-Holders May Benefit Youths
Youth football and recreational programs in Northeast Ohio could receive
up to $2 million under an agreement ending litigation between season
ticket holders and the old Cleveland Browns that was preliminarily
approved by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Kenneth R. Callahan.

The agreement seeks to settle a class action lawsuit brought by 1995
season ticket holders that was to go to trial this spring and to close
the final chapter on the old Browns' departure from Cleveland.

The agreement gives each season ticket holder for the 1995 season the
option of accepting a $50 cash payment for each seat or donating the
money to a charitable fund for support of youth football and recreation
generally in Northeast Ohio.

The fund will be administered by a board composed of former Cleveland
Browns players such as Ozzie Newsome as well as civic leaders of Greater
Cleveland. Organizations involved with youth football programs and other
recreational youth programs would be eligible to apply for funds for
equipment, uniforms, playing field improvements and other related

As is customary in class action lawsuits, fees and expenses will be paid
by the old Browns, subject to approval by the court.

"The National Football League is pleased not only that an amicable
resolution was reached, but that the settlement provides choices for the
ticket holders and benefits youngsters in the Cleveland area," said NFL
spokesman Greg Aiello.

"This settlement benefits the fans who supported football and the youth
who are its future. As a result, it is an appropriate end to this
odyssey," said Art Modell, principal owner of the old Cleveland Browns

The settlement must receive final approval from Callahan before it can go
into effect. A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for May 24, 2001.
Information about the settlement and the hearing will be mailed to class
members early next week.

Contact: CLASS MEMBERS: Gary, Naegele & Theado Joshua Cohen, 216/781-7956
MEDIA: The Oppidan Group Inc. Tom Andrzejewski, 216/771-9988

RACIAL PROFILING: NJ Attorney General Says Better Data Led to Admission
Attorney General John J. Farmer Jr. said on April 5 that more complete
statistics on car searches by the state police prompted his surprising
testimony that racial profiling was continuing on the New Jersey

In an interview, Mr. Farmer rebutted criticism that his admission to the
State Senate Judiciary Committee contradicted his statement in January
that more time was needed before any conclusions could be drawn from the
records of police traffic stops.

Mr. Farmer said he had abandoned his earlier caution because more
detailed records recently became available on the race and ethnicity of
drivers who consented to searches of their cars by troopers last year. He
presented those data to the committee, which is investigating the state's
response to racial profiling.

In January, when his office released the second batch of raw data on
police stops of drivers, broken down by race, under a Department of
Justice consent decree, Mr. Farmer said that while police procedures had
been changed to curtail profiling, it was too early to say whether the
practice continued.

"I thought back in January that it was completely inappropriate to judge
trooper conduct strictly on raw numbers," Mr. Farmer said in the
interview. "Now we can look at the individual searches, and that data is
what was never available before."

Mr. Farmer said he knew that his blunt admission would surprise committee
members, who in the three weeks had grown accustomed to carefully hedged
denials of knowledge of the problem from current and former law
enforcement officials.

"It was not a spontaneous utterance," he said, "and I imagined that it
would come as a surprise."

Mr. Farmer told the Senate committee that it was puzzling, after several
years of national attention and changes in police practices, that black
and Hispanic motorists should continue to account for such a
disproportionate number of traffic searches. The statistics show that
minority motorists made up 73 percent of searches, but that far less
contraband, mostly drugs and guns, was seized from them than from the
smaller proportion of non-Hispanic whites stopped.

William Buckman, a lawyer who pioneered the claim of racial profiling as
a defense against evidence seized in traffic stops, accused Mr. Farmer of
contradicting his January statement that conclusive evidence of continued
racial profiling did not exist.

"It's hard to reconcile his confession that, yes, racial profiling was
still afoot with his statement that reforms are in place to stop it," Mr.
Buckman said. "If anything, it seems that we have come to a point where
the state police are still in the grip of an incredibly entrenched and
belligerent core of racial profilers."

But Mr. Farmer said that there was a large difference between the data
available in January, which was based on the race of drivers in traffic
stops, and the more recent evidence from automobile searches.

Mr. Buckman is working with a group of civil rights lawyers to bring a
class-action suit against the state on behalf of motorists who say they
were victims of profiling. He said Mr. Farmer's admission about the
persistence of profiling should end the state's move to block such a

"It is still astounding that the state could make the concession he made
yesterday and still continue to fight us tooth and nail," Mr. Buckman

But Mr. Farmer said that suit was based on precisely the outdated
evidence that he had warned against two months ago, and he condemned
opportunistic lawsuits in an atmosphere of widespread concern about
racial profiling.

Mr. Farmer's disclosure briefly took the spotlight off his predecessor as
attorney general, Peter G. Verniero, who has been sharply criticized by
committee members for his frequently poor memory of measures he took to
deal with racial profiling when he was in office from 1996 to 1999.

Criticism of Mr. Verniero has been so persistent that nearly half the
Republicans in the State Senate are urging him to step down as a justice
of the State Supreme Court. Mr. Verniero's lawyer, Robert A. Mintz, found
some vindication for his client in Mr. Farmer's admission.

"One fact that everyone can agree on is this: The problem of racial
profiling existed before Peter Verniero became attorney general and it
exists today," Mr. Mintz said. "If that is so, how can you hold Peter
Verniero responsible for not moving quickly enough to solve this

In the interview, Mr. Farmer described the development of a computerized
matrix of interlocking statistics, called the Management Awareness
Program, that would soon eliminate speculation about racial profiling and
allow police officials to scrutinize the actions of each trooper

"Once it is all up, every trooper's record will be computerized to see if
he has discipline problems in the barracks, and what his stop and consent
numbers are, and we will be able to cross-reference that with the
videotape record that he has of every stop," Mr. Farmer said. "We will
have an ability to respond to inappropriate behavior that we never had
before." (The New York Times, April 5, 2001)

THINK NEW: Discovery Goes on for Consolidated Securities Suits in NY
Answerthink Inc. tells investors that, on September 25, 1998, Michael R.
Farrell, a shareholder of THINK New Ideas, filed a class action suit,
Farrell v. THINK New Ideas, Inc., Scott Mednick, Melvin Epstein and
Ronald Bloom, No. 98 Civ. 6809, against THINK New Ideas, Ronald Bloom, a
former officer of THINK New Ideas and a former member of the Company's
Board of Directors, Melvin Epstein and Scott Mednick, both former
officers of THINK New Ideas. The suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of THINK New Ideas'
common stock in the class period from November 14, 1997, through
September 21, 1998.

On various dates in October 1998, six additional class action suits were
filed in the same court against the same parties by six different
individuals, each representing a class of purchasers of THINK New Ideas'
common stock. All seven of these lawsuits were consolidated by order of
the court dated December 15, 1998 into one action titled In Re: THINK New
Ideas, Inc., Consolidated Securities Litigation, No. 98 Civ. 6809 (SHS).

Pursuant to an order of the court, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
and Amended Class Action Complaint on February 10, 1999 (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint superceded all
prior complaints in all of the cases and served as the operative
complaint in the consolidated class action. The Consolidated Complaint
was filed on behalf of all individuals who purchased THINK New Ideas'
common stock from November 5, 1997 through September 21, 1998. The
Consolidated Complaint contained substantially similar allegations as the
complaint filed by Farrell, including that

    -- THINK New Ideas and certain of its current and former officers and
directors disseminated materially false and misleading information about
THINK New Ideas' financial position and results of operations through
certain public statements and in certain documents filed by THINK New
Ideas with the Securities and Exchange Commission;

    -- that these statements and documents caused the market price of
THINK New Ideas' common stock to be artificially inflated;

    -- that the plaintiffs purchased shares of common stock at such
artificially inflated prices and, as a consequence of such purchases,
suffered damages.

The relief sought in the Consolidated Complaint was unspecified, but
included a plea for compensatory damages and interest, punitive damages,
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees
and such other relief as the court deemed just and proper.

This lawsuit became Answerthink’s responsibility upon the merger of
Answerthink and THINK New Ideas. Prior to the merger, THINK New Ideas
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on a number of
grounds. The plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition.

On March 15, 2000, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
and Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") on
April 14, 2000. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on May 1, 2000. On September 14, 2000, the court denied
the motion. The defendants filed an answer to the Second Amended
Complaint on November 10, 2000.

The parties are engaged in discovery. No schedule has been set for the
completion of discovery or for further proceedings. Answerthink believes
there are meritorious defenses to the claims made in the Second Amended
Complaint and intends to contest those claims vigorously. Answerthink
tells investors that, although there can be no assurance as to the
outcome of these matters, an unfavorable resolution could have a material
adverse effect on the results of its operations and/or financial
condition in the future.

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Trial Winds Up For Flight Attendant; Mistrial Denied
Deliberations began Thursday in the damage trial of a nonsmoking former
flight attendant who blames her lung disease on cigarette smoke in
airline cabins.

The nation's four biggest cigarette manufacturers argued against
testimony that she has emphysema and chronic bronchitis and insisted the
cause is unknown for the only ailment that they acknowledged she has.

Marie Fontana's attorneys charged that her medical condition was
aggravated by smoky air in the TWA jets she flew from 1973-76, when she
retired on disability.

The 59-year old Boca Raton resident attended only three days of her
three-week trial. She is a lung-transplant candidate who requires a
24-hour oxygen feed through a nose tube and portable tanks.

In closing arguments Thursday, Fontana's attorneys relied on the
testimony of two radiologists who said she has obstructive airway
diseases that can be caused by secondhand smoke.

Circuit Judge Thomas Wilson instructed the jury that, as a matter of law,
secondhand smoke causes disease in healthy nonsmokers. Tobacco attorneys
contended that Fontana has only sarcoidosis, a disease that medical
authorities say has no known cause.

Fontana's request for compensatory damages is the first of 3,200 claims
generated by the industries $349 million settlement of a national
class-action lawsuit by nonsmoking attendants.

U.S. airlines banned smoking on domestic flights in 1990 and on
international flights in 1997. Fontana flew mostly international routes.

After the jury left the courtroom Thursday morning to begin its work, the
judge denied an industry request for a mistrial based on his including in
his instructions the fact that thousands of other attendants have damage
claims pending as well.

The defendants are Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and
Lorillard. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 5, 2001)

TRIARC COMPANIES: Shareholder's Claims Too Weak to Derail Settlement
A disgruntled former shareholder of Triarc Companies Inc. failed to
derail a settlement of Delaware Chancery Court lawsuits which charged
that the Triarc board awarded excessive bonuses and stock options to the
company's two top executives. In re Triarc Companies Inc. Class and
Derivative Litigation, No. 15746 (Del. Ch., Jan. 12, 2001).

The court found that the release of the objector's class-action claims
along with the derivative charges was justified because the class claims
had little chance of success.

Triarc Companies obtained shareholder approval in 1994 for a compensation
plan that would give the company's two top executive, Nelson Peltz and
Peter May, performance bonuses and stock options in lieu of a base salary
for a six-year period beginning in April 1993. Three years later,
numerous shareholders sued in Delaware Chancery Court and in another
jurisdiction alleging that the directors breached their duties by
awarding cash bonuses and stock options over and above what had been
approved by the shareholders. The complaints sought rescission of the
option awards and disgorgement of the bonuses.

The parties reached a settlement in November 2000 which called for the
surrender of 775,000 options and the return of some of the bonus money.

The settlement would indirectly benefit Triarc stockholders but not
objector T.S.L. Perlman, a Washington, D.C., attorney who had sold his
stock while the litigation was pending. He objected, saying that the
class claims were being released too cheaply.

The court found that the class claims, which centered on disclosure
charges challenging the adequacy of the information given to the
shareholders who approved the plan, were weak and stood very little
chance of serving as the basis of any recovery.

"Moreover, Perlman's decision to sell his shares during the pendency of
the litigation and thus forego the possibility of benefiting from the
equitable and derivative type relief sought by the litigation provides no
reason to exclude him from the class certification orders entered by this
court in actions involving the internal affairs of Delaware
corporations," the court wrote.

The settling plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Rosenthal of Rosenthal,
Monhait, Gross & Goddess in Wilmington, Del.; Jill Abrams of Abbey, Gardy
& Squitieri in New York; and Robert Kornreich and Robert Finkel of Wolf
Popper LLP in New York.

Defendants are represented by Richard I.G. Jones Jr. of Ashby & Geddes in
Wilmington, Gerald Harper and Jonathan Hurwitz of that firm's New York
office, and Martin Tully of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in

Perlman appeared pro se. (Corporate Officers and Directors Liability
Litigation Reporter, February 26, 2001)

VERITAS SOFTWARE: Settlement Hearing Re Seagate Merger Suit Set for Apr.
In a  multi-party transaction involving primarily VERITAS Software
Technology Corporation, formerly known as Seagate Technology, Inc. and
Suez Acquisition Company (Cayman) Limited ("SAC"), a company formed by a
group of private equity firms led by Silver Lake Partners, Seagate sold
all of its property and assets and the property and assets of its
consolidated subsidiaries, other than certain designated assets, to Suez
Acquisition Company (Cayman) Limited, which the company refers to as the
leveraged buyout, and merged a wholly owned subsidiary of VERITAS with
and into Seagate, following which Seagate became VERITAS' wholly owned
subsidiary, which is referred to as the merger.

Following the announcement of the transaction on March 29, 2000, Seagate
stockholders filed 17 lawsuits in Delaware and five lawsuits in
California against Seagate, the individual members of Seagate's board of
directors, certain executive officers of Seagate, Silver Lake Partners,
LP, and VERITAS. Between April 18, 2000 and October 13, 2000, the
Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the 17 lawsuits into a single action
captioned In Re Seagate Technology, Inc. Shareholders Litigation and
certified the class action, and the plaintiffs filed two amended
complaints and a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
closing of the proposed transaction. The plaintiffs' second amended
complaint alleged that Seagate's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders by entering into the leveraged
buyout and merger agreements and that they did not secure the highest
possible price for Seagate's shares, and alleged that VERITAS aided and
abetted that alleged breach. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages
and an injunction of the closing of the transaction. On September 28,
2000, the five California complaints were coordinated, with venue in
Santa Clara County. All five of the California complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed.

On October 13, 2000, the parties to the Delaware lawsuit entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle the action. On January 28, 2001,
the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County outlining the terms of
the settlement pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding.

A hearing is scheduled on April 9, 2001 to determine whether the proposed
settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court,
and whether plaintiffs' counsels' award for fees and expenses should be
paid pursuant to the terms set out in the Stipulation. The settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, the consummation of the leveraged
buyout and the merger and final court approval of the settlement.

Although VERITAS expects final court approval of the Delaware settlement
to occur during the first half of 2001, it is possible that final
approval of the settlement will be denied or delayed. While the outcome
of these matters is currently not determinable, Veritas believes that the
ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.


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  * * *