CAR_Public/010515.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 15, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 95

                              Headlines

CALIFORNIA HEALTH: State's ADA Liability Could Exceed $400 Million
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY: Federal Judge Expands Racial Profiling Case
CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE: Look for Company's Reply to Motion to Dismiss May 21
COLUMBIA BANCORP: Continues to Decry ACH Payment-Related Counterclaims
CONCORDE CAREER: Whittles Number of Unsettled Class Claims Down to One

DATA BROADCASTING: Posts Letter of Credit to Back CheckRite Settlement
DATA BROADCASTING: Seven Derivative Actions Still Getting Organized
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Indicates Openness to Settle Remaining Sorbates Cases
GART SPORTS: California Wage & Hour Suits Survive Motions to Dismiss
H&R BLOCK: Settlement of 1996 Olde Suit Gets Preliminary Court Approval  

HOTEL ELECTRICITY: Guests Complain Energy Surcharge Unfair & Fraudulent
MBNA AMERICA: Final Hearing this Month on $8.7 Mil Sparks Settlement
MBNA AMERICA: Broder's Partial Summary Judgment Motion Argument Resumes
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Vegetarians Complain about Beef Flavored Fries
MONY LIFE: New York and Multi-District Litigation Drags On

OLD REPUBLIC: Title Company Ordered to Pay Interest on Escrow Accounts
RENT-A-CENTER: Class Certification Denied in Race Discrimination Case
SELECT COMFORT: Continues Defending Shareholder Complaint in Minnesota
SWISSAIR 111: Global Technologies' Umbrella Policy Provides No Coverage
TAMOXIFEN LITIGATION: AstraZenica & Barr Labs Accused of Conspiring

UCAR INTERNATIONAL: Foreign Customer & Carbon Electrode Suits Continue

                              *********
  
CALIFORNIA HEALTH: State's ADA Liability Could Exceed $400 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
The CALIFORNIA DAILY TAX FREE INCOME FUND INC tells its shareholders
that the State of California is party to two class action lawsuits
asserting ADA-related claims and causes of action:

     (A) In Charles Davis v. California Health and Human Services
Agency, the plaintiff has brought a class action under a number of
federal acts, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that persons who are
institutionalized with disabilities at a San Francisco-run, 1,200 bed
skilled nursing facility (Laguna Honda) who require long-term care
should be assessed as to whether they can be treated at home or in
community-based facilities, and then provided appropriate care. The
State has filed an answer. At this early stage in the proceedings, it
is difficult to assess the financial impact of a judgment against the
State. However, should the plaintiff prevail, the State's liability
could exceed $400 million. The State is vigorously defending this
action.  

     (B) In Stephen Sanchez, et al. v. Grantland Johnson et al., the
plaintiffs have brought a class action in Federal District Court for
the Northern District of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief, alleging, in part, that provider rates for community-based
services for developmentally disabled individuals are discriminatory
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and violate the Social
Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act, because
they result in unnecessary institutionalization of developmentally
disabled persons. The State has filed a responsive pleading and is
vigorously contesting this case. At this early stage in the
proceedings, it is difficult to assess the financial impact of a
judgment against the State. However, should the plaintiffs prevail, the
State's liability could exceed $400 million.


CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY: Federal Judge Expands Racial Profiling Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has dramatically expanded a racial profiling lawsuit
against the California Highway Patrol, the Associated Press reports.  
U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel granted class-action status to a
case alleging CHP officers on three occasions pulled over Hispanic and
black men.  The judge said he believes if profiling does exist, it
would not likely be limited to a handful of incidents.  Plaintiffs can
now include all Hispanic and black drivers stopped by the CHP since
June 1998 in areas along Highway 101 and Highway 5.  CHP officers stop
about 3 million drivers a year on the state's highways; it's not known
how many might be affected by the judge's ruling.

Lawyers who brought the case were elated with the ruling, the AP
relates. ``This makes it much more powerful as a tool to achieve
meaningful change in policies that result in racial profiling,'' said
Jon Streeter, handling the suit for the American Civil Liberties Union.
A lawyer from the state attorney general's office downplayed the
decision. ``All it really does is allow the plaintiffs (to continue)
their claim that the Highway Patrol has policies and practices that
discriminate against Latinos and African Americans,'' Tyler Pon said.
``What remains to be seen is whether they can prove it.'' The case has
already prompted the CHP to change one policy.


CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE: Look for Company's Reply to Motion to Dismiss May 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
During 1998, twenty-four purported class action lawsuits were filed
against CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORP, and certain of its officers, alleging,
among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and omitting
disclosure of material adverse information regarding the Company's
business. In March 1999, these actions were consolidated and in July
2000, a lead plaintiff group was appointed by the court. An amended
complaint was filed October 20, 2000. The amended complaint claims that
as a result of alleged improper actions, the market prices of the
Company's equity securities were artificially inflated during the
period between April 17, 1997 and June 26, 1998. The amended complaint
seeks monetary damages in an undetermined amount. On February 20, 2001
the Company responded to this amended complaint with a motion to
dismiss all allegations against the Company and the named officers. On
April 20, 2001 the plaintiffs responded to the Company's motion to
dismiss. The Company expects to file its reply to the plaintiffs'
response no later than May 21, 2001. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to vigorously defend the
actions. Based on available information, management believes the
resolution of these suits will not have a material adverse effect on
the financial position of the Company.


COLUMBIA BANCORP: Continues to Decry ACH Payment-Related Counterclaims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 7, 2000, COLUMBIA BANCORP filed a class action interpleader
lawsuit (The Columbia Bank vs. Network 1 Financial Corporation, et.
al., Civil Action No.WMN-00-CV1002) in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, Northern Division and deposited with the
Court approximately $6.0 million.  The Fund was on deposit with the
Bank as the result of a computer file sent through a computerized debit
and credit system, known as the Automated Clearing House, on behalf of
the originators of the computer file.  The interpleader lawsuit filed
by the Bank alleges, among other things, that the Originators of the
File did not have the authorization of the accountholders whose
accounts were debited by the file in accordance with the rules
governing the ACH Network and that the Originators of the File were
negligent in that they originated and processed an unauthorized ACH
file. The interpleader lawsuit seeks the Court's assistance in
determining the rights of the parties to the Fund, recovery of legal
costs incurred by the Bank and discharge of the Bank from any liability
that may arise from the File. The Originators of the File have filed
counterclaims with the Court under various theories including breach of
contract, conversion and tortious interference with contract and
prospective business relations. The Originators of the File seek
monetary damages ranging from $225,000 to $100 million in various
counts under these theories.  The Bank says in a regulatory filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, that it continues to consider
the counterclaims meritless and will vigorously defend all claims
brought against it.


CONCORDE CAREER: Whittles Number of Unsettled Class Claims Down to One
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Concorde Career Colleges Inc., is sued from time to time by a student
or students who claim to be dissatisfied with the results of their
program of study. Typically, the claims allege a breach of contract,
deceptive advertising and misrepresentation and the student or students
seek reimbursement of tuition.  At times, Punitive damages are also
sought. In addition, The United States Department of Education (ED) may
allege regulatory violations found during routine program reviews. The
Company has, and will continue to dispute these findings as appropriate
in the normal course of business. In the opinion of the Company's
management such pending litigation and
disputed findings are not material to the Company's financial condition
or its results of operation.

During July 1993, nine former students of the Jacksonville, Florida
Campus filed individual lawsuits against the Campus, alleging deceptive
trade practices, breach of contract, and fraud and misrepresentation.
These suits have since been dismissed by the plaintiffs; however, over
time, three other cases were filed seeking similar relief on behalf of
a total of 95 plaintiffs.  Conversion of one of the three cases to a
class action was attempted; however, the plaintiff's motion for class
certification was denied on April 18, 1997. On May 19, 1997, the
plaintiff appealed the order denying certification of the class. On
February 5, 1998, the appellate court issued a per curiam decision
without opinion affirming the trial court's denial of class
certification. The appellate opinion is now final, and no further
appeal is available on the class certification issue. During the
appeal, all activity in the other cases was stayed. On February 11,
2000 the court issued a decision, dismissing the plaintiffs fraud and
misrepresentation allegations against the Company in one of the cases.
Several plaintiffs dropped from the case over time. The Company made
offers in 1999 to the remaining plaintiffs to settle all claims for
$750 per plaintiff (which included all attorneys' fees and costs) and
forgiveness of any debt due the Company from that plaintiff. Forty of
the plaintiffs accepted the offer in 2000. The Company settled 40 of
the remaining claims in late 2000 and early 2001 for a total of
$152,000 including attorney's fees and costs. One plaintiff dropped
from the case. There is one remaining plaintiff. The Company believes
the remaining suit will be settled in 2001.

The Company has a pending suit against the ED challenging past Cohort
Default Rates published for the Company's Campuses and the rate
correction regulations, which the ED adopted in 1994. The ED's rate
correction regulations contain a very restrictive standard for removal
of defaulted loans from a Campus Cohort Default Rate due to improper
servicing and collection, and the Company's suit contends that the
regulations are unlawful because they contravene provisions of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (as amended) and are arbitrary and
capricious. All of the Company's Campuses currently have one or more of
their three most recent default rates below 25%, following
administrative appeal rulings and continuing aggressive default
management efforts by the Company, and as a result, proceedings in the
suit are inactive.


DATA BROADCASTING: Posts Letter of Credit to Back CheckRite Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 1993, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California captioned
Newman v. CheckRite of California, Inc., et al, CIV--S-93-1557-LKK/PAN.  
The lawsuit alleged violations of the Federal Fair Debt Practices Act
and the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The allegations
include charging check writers unauthorized fees for returned checks
and threatening litigation against check writers where none was
actually contemplated. The case was certified as a class action on
August 2, 1996.  DATA BROADCASTING CORPORATION has negotiated a
settlement and has fully funded the settlement by posting a letter of
credit.


DATA BROADCASTING: Seven Derivative Actions Still Getting Organized
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From January 1 through February, 2001, seven lawsuits were filed by
various shareholders of Data Broadcasting Company against the Company's
directors, the Company's majority shareholder, and in several instances
against the Company's chief financial officer. These actions are
all pending in the Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County under
the following captions:

   * Schachter, et al. v. Hill, et al., C.A. No. 18587NC;

   * Brickell Partners v. Clark, et al., C.A. No. 18595NC;

   * Carman v. Hill, et al., C.A. No. 18603NC;

   * Patton v. Clark, et al., C.A. No. 18618NC;

   * Hirt v. Hill, et al., C.A. No. 18649NC;

   * Millard A. Williams Trust v. Clark, et al., C.A. No. 18659NC; and

   * Mark Krekorian, et al. v. Clark, et al., C.A. No. 18665NC.

In each of the Derivative Actions, the Company is named as a nominal
defendant on the theory that the plaintiff shareholders are really
suing on its behalf.

Each Derivative Action challenges the Company's January 2001 sale of
its 34.4% interest in MarketWatch.com Inc. ("MarketWatch") to Pearson
as having been consummated at an allegedly inadequate price due to the
supposedly undue influence of the Company's majority stockholder.

The seven Derivative Actions are still in an organizational stage
procedurally, so no substantive activity has yet occurred in any of
them. The Company anticipates the seven suits will be consolidated and
proceed in unison. Once consolidation occurs, defendants expect to
contest the allegations against them vigorously.

    
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Indicates Openness to Settle Remaining Sorbates Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, on September 30, 1998, EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO.
entered into a voluntary plea agreement with the U.S. Department of
Justice and agreed to pay an $11 million fine to resolve a charge
brought against the Company for violation of Section One of the Sherman
Act. Under the agreement, the Company entered a plea of guilty to one
count of price-fixing for sorbates, a class of food preservatives, from
January 1995 through June 1997. The plea agreement was approved by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
October 21, 1998. The Company recognized the entire fine in third
quarter 1998 and is paying the fine in installments over a period of
five years. On October 26, 1999, the Company pleaded guilty in a
Federal Court of Canada to a violation of the Competition Act of Canada
and was fined $780,000 (Canadian). The plea admitted that the same
conduct that was the subject of the September 30, 1998 plea in the
United States had occurred with respect to sorbates sold in Canada, and
prohibited repetition of the conduct and provides for future
monitoring. The fine has been paid.

In addition, the Company, along with other companies, is currently a
defendant in twenty-one antitrust lawsuits brought subsequent to the
Company's plea agreements as putative class actions on behalf of
certain purchasers of sorbates in the United States and Canada. In each
lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to fix the price of sorbates and that the class members paid
more for sorbates than they would have paid absent the defendants'
conspiracy. Seven of the lawsuits are pending in California state court
in a consolidated action and allege state antitrust and consumer
protection violations on behalf of classes of indirect purchasers of
sorbates; six of the lawsuits are pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in a consolidated action
and allege federal antitrust violations on behalf of classes of direct
purchasers of sorbates; two lawsuits were filed in Tennessee state
courts under the antitrust and consumer protection laws of various
states, including Tennessee, on behalf of classes of indirect
purchasers of sorbates in those states; two lawsuits were filed in
Wisconsin State Court under various state antitrust laws on behalf of a
class of indirect purchasers of sorbates in those states; one lawsuit
was filed in Kansas State Court under Kansas antitrust laws on behalf
of a class of indirect purchasers of sorbates in that state; one
lawsuit was filed in New Mexico State Court under New Mexico antitrust
laws on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers of sorbates in that
state; one lawsuit was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
under the federal competition law and pursuant to common law causes of
action on behalf of a class of direct and indirect purchasers of
sorbates in Canada; and one lawsuit was filed in the Quebec Superior
Court under the federal competition law on behalf of a class of direct
and indirect purchasers of sorbates in the Province of Quebec. The
plaintiffs in most cases seek damages of unspecified amounts,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief; in addition,
certain of the actions claim restitution, injunction against alleged
illegal conduct, and other equitable relief.

The Company has reached settlements in the direct and indirect
purchaser class actions pending in California. The California direct
purchaser settlement has received final court approval; the California
indirect purchaser settlement has yet to be finally approved by the
court. One of the two indirect purchaser actions in Tennessee has been
preliminarily approved by the trial court in Davidson County,
Tennessee. The Company has also reached preliminary settlements that
would resolve the Wisconsin and New Mexico indirect purchaser actions;
however, these settlements require further court approval. Each of the
remaining class actions is in the preliminary discovery stage, with no
class having been certified to date.

The Company has also been included as a defendant in two separate
lawsuits concerning sorbates currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, one filed on
behalf of Dean Foods Company, Kraft Foods, Inc., Ralston Purina
Company, McKee Foods Corporation, and Nabisco, Inc; and the other filed
on behalf of Conopco, Inc. Both lawsuits allege that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to fix the price of sorbates in violation of
Section One of the Sherman Act and that the plaintiffs were direct
purchasers of sorbates from the defendants. These plaintiffs elected to
opt out of the final class action settlement of the federal direct
purchaser cases in California and are pursuing their claims
individually.

The Company intends to continue to defend these actions vigorously,
unless they can be settled on terms acceptable to the parties.


GART SPORTS: California Wage & Hour Suits Survive Motions to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Three class action complaints pend against Gart Sports Co. in
California, alleging certain wage and hour claims in violation of
California law.  All of the complaints seek compensatory damages,
punitive damages and penalties. The California courts recently have
denied motions to dismiss two of the three complaints. Gart intends to
defend these claims vigorously but a judgment adverse to the company
could have a material adverse effect on Gart.

                                      
H&R BLOCK: Settlement of 1996 Olde Suit Gets Preliminary Court Approval  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Inc. (NYSE: HRB) announced that the Superior Court of
Arizona, Maricopa County, has given preliminary approval to a
settlement that resolves a 1996 class action lawsuit filed against Olde
Discount Corporation on behalf of customers of Arizona branches of
Olde. The plaintiffs challenged Olde's advertising of commission-free
trading programs.

Under the settlement, which is subject to final approval of the court,
Olde will distribute $21 million to a fund to be used to pay claims of
class members, attorneys' fees and the administrative expenses relating
to the settlement.

"We settled to bring closure to expensive litigation that began long
before the acquisition of Olde and direct all our energy to its
strategic priorities," said Mark Ernst, president and CEO of H&R Block.
Ernst added the company also wanted to minimize the risk inherent in
class action jury trials.

The company continues to deny liability.  The settlement will be
reflected in H&R Block's financial results for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2001. The potential impact of the suit on expected EPS
results was incorporated in previous information provided by the
company. On May 3, the company announced that its preliminary analysis
of fourth quarter performance supports full year EPS results in the
middle to the top of the company's stated long term EPS growth target
of 13-18 percent.


HOTEL ELECTRICITY: Guests Complain Energy Surcharge Unfair & Fraudulent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco law firm has filed four separate lawsuits against:

     * Hilton Hotels Corp.,
     * Hyatt Corp.,
     * Starwood Hotels & Resorts, and
     * Marriott Corp.

The suits, according to a report appearing in The San Francisco
Chronicle, ask for a court order halting the hotel giants from adding
surprise fees to guests' bills at checkout to make-up for increased
electricity costs in California.  The suits also seek full
restitution to consumers and other damages.  

The suits against Hilton, Hyatt and Starwood were filed in the San
Francisco Superior Court.  The Marriott litigation was filed in Los
Angeles.      

"When they agree to sell you a room at a particular price, you're   
entitled to the room at that price, and no more," Barry Himmelstein,
Esq., at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, which filed the suits.
"They can't charge you extra for heat and light any more than they
could charge you extra for air and water," Himmelstein told a Chronicle
reporter.  "There is no reason why the defendant cannot recoup its
higher energy costs by adjusting the basic room rates that it quotes to
its customers," the lawsuit against Hilton states, making the point
that the undisclosed surcharge is what violates the California Business
and Professions Code by engaging in "unlawful, unfair and/or
fraudulent business practices to the detriment of the state."

Hyatt spokeswoman Angie Sikkema said the company had not been
served with the lawsuit yet, and "cannot comment at this time."  Hilton
spokeswoman Kathy Shepard knew of the controversy, but said, "We don't
comment on pending litigation."


MBNA AMERICA: Final Hearing this Month on $8.7 Mil Sparks Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 1996, Andrew B. Spark filed a lawsuit against MBNA Corporation,
MBNA AMERICA BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and certain of its officers and
its subsidiary, MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc. The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This suit is
a purported class action. The plaintiff alleges that MBNA's advertising
of its cash promotional annual percentage rate program was fraudulent
and deceptive.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including
actual, treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an alleged
breach of contract, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

In February 1998, a class was certified by the district court. In
September 2000, the court gave preliminary approval to a settlement of
this suit for approximately $8.7 million. A hearing on final approval
will be held in May 2001.


MBNA AMERICA: Broder's Partial Summary Judgment Motion Argument Resumes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 1998, Gerald D. Broder filed a lawsuit against MBNA
Corporation and MBNA in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New
York. This suit is a purported class action. The plaintiff alleges that
MBNA's advertising of its cash promotional annual percentage rate
program was fraudulent and deceptive. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages including actual, treble and punitive damages and attorneys'
fees for an alleged  breach of contract, common law fraud and violation
of New York consumer protection statutes. In April 2000, summary
judgment was granted to MBNA Corporation and MBNA on the common law
fraud claim and a class was certified by the Court. In May 2000, MBNA
Corporation and MBNA filed an appeal from the order certifying a class.
In March 2001, the order was affirmed by the appellate court.

In October 2000, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. That motion is pending. MBNA Corporation and MBNA believe  
their advertising practices were and are proper under applicable
federal and state law and intend to defend this action vigorously.


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Vegetarians Complain about Beef Flavored Fries
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Times of India reports that Harish BhartiHarish Bharti, a 48-year-
old lawyer, initiated a class action lawsuit against fast-food giant
McDonald's Corporation, for flavoring its French fries with beef
tallow.  McDonald's insists that it doesn't do that when it sends its
par-fried frozen French fries to India.  
  
Bharti says his self-financed lawsuit's purpose to save Hindus from
ruining their dharma by consuming beef unknowingly.  Bharti suggests
that the plaintiff class he represents is comprised of 16 million
people -- one million Hindus and 15 million American vegetarians.  

Asked by a Times reporter how he intends to divide any damage awards,
Bharti says: "I am a crusader for the right cause and I always see it
through.  Money is secondary, only to punish the corporate giants
because that is the only language they understand. Under the laws,
McDonald's will be liable for not only general damages but punitive and
exemplary damages too.  That could even run into a billion dollars."
  
The Times relates that Bharti also represents several thousand
professional Asian-American engineers against Boeing in a class action
lawsuit.  


MONY LIFE: New York and Multi-District Litigation Drags On
----------------------------------------------------------
Since late 1995 a number of purported class actions have been commenced
in various state and federal courts against the Company alleging that
it engaged in deceptive sales practices in connection with the sale of
whole and universal life insurance policies from the early 1980s
through the mid 1990s. Although the claims asserted in each case are
not identical, they seek substantially the same relief under
essentially the same theories of recovery (e.g., breach of contract,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligent supervision and training,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violation of state
insurance and/or deceptive business practice laws). Plaintiffs in these
cases seek primarily equitable relief (e.g., reformation, specific
performance, mandatory injunctive relief prohibiting MONY from
canceling policies for failure to make required premium payments,
imposition of a constructive trust and creation of a claims resolution
facility to adjudicate any individual issues remaining after resolution
of all class-wide issues) as opposed to compensatory damages, although
they also seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts and, if they
were to succeed at trial, the equitable remedies they seek could
result in significant expense to the Company. The Company has denied
any wrongdoing and has asserted numerous affirmative defenses.

On June 7, 1996, the New York State Supreme Court certified one of
those cases, Goshen v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York
and MONY Life Insurance Company of America (now known as DeFilippo, et
al v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York and MONY Life
Insurance Company), the first of the class actions filed, as a
nationwide class consisting of all persons or entities who have, or at
the time of the policy's termination had, an ownership interest
in a whole or universal life insurance policy issued by the Company
that was allegedly sold on a "vanishing premium" basis during the
period January 1, 1982 to December 31, 1995. On March 27, 1997, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary
judgment on all counts of the complaint. All of the other putative
class actions have been consolidated and transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts and/or are being held in abeyance
pending the outcome of the Goshen case.

On October 21, 1997, the New York State Supreme Court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgement and dismissed all claims filed
in the Goshen case against the Company. On December 20, 1999, the New
York State Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all but one of
the claims in the Goshen case (a claim under New York's General
Business Law), which has been remanded back to the New York State
Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
The New York State Supreme Court has subsequently reaffirmed that, for
purposes of the remaining New York General Business Law claim, the
class is now limited to New York purchasers only, and has further held
that the New York General Business Law claims of all class members
whose claims accrued prior to November 29, 1992 are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. The Company intends to defend that
litigation vigorously.


OLD REPUBLIC: Title Company Ordered to Pay Interest on Escrow Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Stuart Pollak in San Francisco ordered Old
Republic Title Co. to pay $13.7 million (approximately $10.7 million to
reimburse consumers and $3 million in penalties) to more than 200,000
home buyers who never received interest on escrow accounts managed by
the firm.  
  
"This is a great victory for home buyers," San Francisco City
Attorney Louise Renne told a reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle.
"I am very pleased that our consumer protection work is putting stolen
money back into the pockets of California consumers."
  
The 1998 suit, filed by Renne and District Attorney Terence Hallinan,
originally sought $45 million in penalties against Old Republic.  The
suit alleges that Old Republic, one of the nation's biggest title
companies, illegally pocketed interest earned on home buyers' escrow
accounts instead of giving it back to consumers as required by law.


RENT-A-CENTER: Class Certification Denied in Race Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. (Nasdaq: RCII) announced that the federal district
court in Kansas City, Missouri denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in Brian Murray, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.  The
Murray case, filed in May 1999, alleged various claims of racial
discrimination in the Company's hiring, compensation, promotion and
termination practices on behalf of a purported nationwide class.  The
court's ruling limits the case to the eight individual plaintiffs'
claims, subject to their right to appeal the court's decision.

"The court's ruling is a very favorable development in this ongoing
matter," commented J. E. Talley, the Company's Chairman and CEO.  The
court agreed with our long-standing position that this matter should
proceed on individual claims only, which we believe are without merit.

Rent-A-Center, headquartered in Plano, Texas, currently operates
2,198 company-owned rent-to-own stores in 50 states, Washington D.C.
and Puerto Rico.  The stores offer high-quality, durable goods such as
home electronics, appliances, computers, and furniture and accessories
to consumers under flexible rental purchase agreements that allow the
customer to obtain ownership of the merchandise at the conclusion of an
agreed-upon rental period.  ColorTyme, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, is a national franchisor of 342 rent-to-own stores, 330
of which operate under the trade name of ColorTyme, and the remaining
12 of which operate under the Rent-A-Center name.


SELECT COMFORT: Continues Defending Shareholder Complaint in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corp. and certain former officers and directors
have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf
of shareholders in U.S. District Court in Minnesota. The named
plaintiffs, who purport to act on behalf of a class of purchasers of  
common stock during the period from December 4, 1998 to June 7, 1999,
charge the defendants with violations of federal securities laws. The
suit alleges that Select Comfort and the former directors and officers
failed to disclose or misrepresented certain information concerning our
business during the class period. The complaint does not specify an
amount of damages claimed.

"While we believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the claims, there can be no assurance that we will be
successful in defending the lawsuit. Defense of the suit could be
expensive and may create a distraction to the management team. If we
are unsuccessful in defending the suit, an adverse judgment could have
a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or
results of operations," the Company says in a regulatory filing.

The Company also notes that it is attempting to complete a private
placement or obtain other financing at this time.



SWISSAIR 111: Global Technologies' Umbrella Policy Provides No Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are a defendant in a multi-district class action lawsuit," Global
Technologies Ltd. discloses in a recent regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  "If found liable for an amount
substantially in excess of the limits of our coverage, we could lose
all of our assets," the Company tells its investors.  

The lawsuit, in which Global is involved, is Swissair/MDL-1269, IN
REGARDS TO AN AIR CRASH NEAR PEGGY'S COVE, NOVA SCOTIA. This Multi-
district litigation, which is being overseen by the United States
District Court for the Eastern Division of Pennsylvania, relates to the
crash of Swissair Flight No. 111 on September 2, 1998. The aircraft
involved in the crash was a McDonnell Douglas MD-11 equipped with an
in-flight interactive entertainment system developed by the Interactive
Entertainment Division that The Network Connection acquired from us.
Since then, a number of claims have been filed by the families of the
victims of the crash.

The Company continues: "We have been named as one of the many
defendants, including Swissair, Boeing, DuPont and The Network
Connection, in this consolidated multi-district litigation. Our
aviation insurer is defending us in the action. We have $10 million in
insurance coverage related to the action. With respect to additional
insurance coverage, a court has ruled that an umbrella policy for an
additional $10 million in insurance does not cover the Swissair action.
Currently, we do not plan to appeal such ruling in connection with the
Swissair crash. If liability is assessed against us, to the extent this
liability exceeds the available insurance, our business will be
adversely affected."


TAMOXIFEN LITIGATION: AstraZenica & Barr Labs Accused of Conspiring
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer groups continued their legal offensive against the
pharmaceutical industry, saying in lawsuits that AstraZeneca and Barr
Laboratories Inc. conspired to inflate the price of the widely used
breast cancer drug tamoxifen, the Los Angeles Times reports.  The
suits, the Times relates, are part of a broader assault that has
turned the drug industry into a magnet for class actions and allege a
1993 settlement of patent litigation between AstraZeneca and Barr was a
collusive agreement.  

The conspiracy charge stems from Barr dropping its legal efforts to
bring out a low-cost generic version of tamoxifen, and in return,
AstraZeneca paying Barr $21 million and allowing Barr to sell, in the
U.S., an unbranded version of tamoxifen manufactured by AstraZeneca.
According to the plaintiffs, Barr's version of tamoxifen is only 5%
cheaper than AstraZeneca's branded product, Nolvadex. Generic versions
of drugs typically sell for 30% to 80% less, the plaintiffs say.


UCAR INTERNATIONAL: Foreign Customer & Carbon Electrode Suits Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, UCAR INTERNATIONAL. INC., and other producers of graphite
electrodes were served with complaints commencing various antitrust
class action lawsuits. Subsequently, the complaints were either
withdrawn without prejudice to refile or consolidated into a single
complaint.  In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated U.S. federal antitrust law in connection with
the sale of graphite electrodes and seek, among other things, an award
of treble damages resulting from such alleged violations. In August
1998, a class of plaintiffs consisting of all persons who purchased
graphite electrodes in the U.S. directly from the defendants during the
period from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1997 was certified.

In 1998 and 1999, UCAR and other producers of graphite electrodes were
served with complaints and petitions by steelmakers in the U.S. and
Canada, commencing nine separate civil antitrust lawsuits in various
courts.  In the complaints and petitions, the plaintiffs allege the
defendants violated U.S. federal, Texas and Canadian antitrust laws and
Canadian conspiracy law in connection with the sale of graphite
electrodes.

In 1999 and 2000, UCAR and other producers of graphite electrodes were
served with three complaints commencing three separate civil antitrust
lawsuits.  The first complaint was filed by 26 steelmakers and related
parties, all but one of whom are located outside the U.S. The second
complaint was filed by four steelmakers, all of whom are located
outside the U.S. The third complaint was filed by a steelmaker who is
located outside the U.S. In each complaint, the plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated U.S. federal antitrust law in connection with
the sale of graphite electrodes sold or sourced from the U.S. and those
sold and sourced outside the U.S. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, an award of treble damages resulting from such alleged
violations. UCAR believes it has strong defenses against claims
alleging that purchases of graphite electrodes outside the U.S. are
actionable under U.S. federal antitrust law.  UCAR has filed motions
to dismiss the first and second complaints.

In 1999 and 2000, UCAR was served with three complaints commencing
three civil antitrust lawsuits. In the complaints, the plaintiffs
allege the defendants violated U.S. federal antitrust law in
connection with the sale of carbon electrodes and seek, among other
things, an award of treble damages resulting from such alleged
violations.

Certain customers in other countries who purchased graphite electrodes,
carbon electrodes or other products from us have threatened to commence
antitrust lawsuits against UCAR in the U.S. or in other jurisdictions
with respect to the subject matter of the investigations and lawsuits
described above.

Through April 30, 2001, except as described in the next paragraph, UCAR
has settled all of the lawsuits described above, certain of the
threatened civil antitrust lawsuits and certain possible civil
antitrust claims by certain other customers who negotiated directly
with UCAR.  The settlements cover virtually all of the actual and
potential claims against us by customers in the U.S. and Canada arising
out of alleged antitrust violations occurring prior to the date
of the respective settlements in connection with the sale of graphite
electrodes. The settlement of the antitrust class action also covers
the actual and potential claims against UCAR by certain foreign
customers arising out of alleged antitrust violations occurring prior
to the date of the respective settlements in connection with the sale
of graphite electrodes sourced from the U.S. Although each settlement
is unique, in the aggregate they consist primarily of current and
deferred cash payments with some product credits and discounts.
All fines and settlement payments due have been timely paid.

Through March 31, 2001, UCAR has paid an aggregate of $241 million in
fines and net settlement and expense payments and $11 million in
imputed interest. On March 31, 2001, $99 million remained in the
reserve and, based on information known to us on April 30, 2001, the
aggregate amount of remaining committed payments for fines and
settlements as of March 31, 2001 was about $55 million. The aggregate
amount of remaining committed payments for imputed interest by March
31, 2001 was about $12 million. About $6 million of the committed
payments for fines and settlements are due on or before March 31, 2002.

The foreign customer lawsuits and the carbon electrode lawsuits have
not been settled and are still in their early stages.  UCAR has been
vigorously defending, and intend to continue to vigorously defend,
against these lawsuits as well as all threatened lawsuits and
possible unasserted claims, including those mentioned above. UCAR may
at any time, however, settle these lawsuits as well as any threatened
lawsuits and possible claims.



                              *********

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., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.  Larri-Nil G. Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  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  * * *