CAR_Public/010521.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Monday, May 21 2001, Vol. 3, No. 99

                              Headlines

                             

ACTION PERFORMANCE: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Scheduled this Month
ADVANTICA RESTAURANT: Consent Decrees Entered by Company Dismissed
AETNA LIFE: Asks Court to Dismiss Reese Suit for Failure to State Claim
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Filed V. Company in S.D. Illinois
AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL: Judge Signs Settlement, $198,000 if Merger Occurs

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Files Certification Appeal, Disputes Damages Amount
ARVIDA JMB: $1.4 M Homeowners Claim Back in Dade County Circuit Court  
CORVIS CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DONEGAL GROUP: Opts to Settle with Shareholders to Avoid Litigation
DYNEGY INC.: Plaintiffs Request Suits Be Remanded to California Courts

EL PASO: Quinque Plaint Returned to Kansas for Further Proceedings
EL PASO: Two Add'l Gas Pricing-related Suits Filed In California
FIRST DATA: Awaits Resolution of Appeal by Objectors to Settlement Pact
FIRST DATA: Lines Up Strong Defense Against $500 Million Damage Suit
FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Court Dismisses James Second Amended Complaint

GENERAL MOTORS: 83 percent Want Cash Offer in Pickup Truck Settlement
HARMONIC INC.: Securities Suits Dismissal Hearing May Be Moved
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Deadline to Answer Shareholders Suit Extended
OPUS360 CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
OVERHILL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit

PDV AMERICA: Agrees to Indemnify UNO-VEN Company Against Claims
PHOENIX LEASING: Discovery on Ash Complaint Filed In Sacramento Begins
PRESSTEK INC.: Settlement Pact Required 808,050 Shares in First Quarter
PURCHASEPRO.COM: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Lawsuit in Nevada
RESOURCES ACCRUED: Proposed Settlement Agreement On Table

ROLLINS INC.: Butland Case May Qualify as Class Action
SEAVIEW VIDEO: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in M.D. Florida
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION: Court Has Yet To Rule on Motion to Dismiss
SOUTHWESTERN LIFE: Has Accrued $4.7 MM in Add'l Liabilities
SPACELABS MEDICAL: Race Discrimination Lawsuit Remains Uncertified

TENET HEALTHCARE: Plans Outlined to Improve Disabled Access by 2011
UNITED TRUST: Discovery Begun On Proposed New Class Representatives
VENTANA MEDICAL: Hearing of Leung Suit Appeal to SC Expected This Month



ACTION PERFORMANCE: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Scheduled this Month
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30, 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed against Action
Performance Companies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, Case No.CIV146992106 PHXROS. Fred W. Wagenhals,
director and officer of the Company, and Tod J. Wagenhals and
Christopher S. Besing, former directors and officers of the
Company, were also named as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and the other defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by:

     (a) making allegedly false statements about the state of the   
         Company's business and shipment of certain products to a
         customer, or

     (b) participating in a fraudulent scheme that was intended to
         inflate the price of the Company's common stock.

The alleged class of plaintiffs consists of all persons who purchased
the Company's publicly traded securities between July 27, 1999 and
December 16, 1999. The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified amount
of monetary damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit, which is scheduled for hearing in May 2001.


ADVANTICA RESTAURANT: Consent Decrees Entered by Company Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 1994, Advantica Restaurant Group, Inc. entered into two
consent decrees resolving the class action litigation brought against
Denny's Holding, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, which alleged that
Denny's engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of l964.

The Company denied any wrongdoing. The Consent Decrees enjoined the
Company from racial discrimination and required the Company to, among
other things, implement certain employee training and testing programs
and provide public notice of Denny's nondiscrimination policies.  

Denny's has met all of its obligations under the Consent Decrees. On
January 16, 2000, class counsel, together with counsel for the United
States, submitted reports to the courts that entered the Consent
Decrees reporting on the Company's completion of the requirements of
the Consent Decrees and recommending the early dismissal of the
Consent Decrees effective November 24, 2000.  

On January 23, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland issued an order dismissing one of the Consent Decrees, and on
April 4, 2001, the United States District Court Northern District of
California dismissed the second Consent Decree.


AETNA LIFE: Asks Court to Dismiss Reese Suit for Failure to State Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 30, 2000, by
Helen Reese, Richard Reese, Villere Bergeron and Allan Eckert against
Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company.

The Reese Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive relief from ALIAC. The Reese Complaint claims that ALIAC
engaged in unlawful sales practices in marketing life insurance
policies.

ALIAC has moved to dismiss the Reese Complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. This litigation is in the
preliminary stages. The Company intends to defend the action
vigorously.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Filed V. Company in S.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 2001, an amended class action complaint entitled Miller v.
Mitchell Hutchins Assets Management, Inc., No. 01-192-DRH, was filed in
Federal District Court in the Southern District of Illinois against
Alliance Capital Management Holding LP, Alliance Fund Distributors,
Inc., and other defendants alleging violations of the federal
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and breaches of common law
fiduciary duty.

The allegations in the amended complaint concern six mutual funds with
which Alliance Capital has investment advisory agreements, including
the Alliance Premier Growth Fund, Alliance Health Care Fund, Alliance
Growth Fund, Alliance Quasar Fund, Alliance Fund, and Alliance
Disciplined Value Fund.

The principal allegations of the amended complaint are that:

     (i) certain advisory agreements concerning these funds were   
         negotiated, approved, and executed in violation of the ICA, in
         particular because certain directors of these funds should be
         deemed interested under the ICA;

    (ii) the distribution plans for these funds were negotiated,
         approved, and executed in violation of the ICA; and

   (iii) the advisory fees and distribution fees paid to Alliance
         Capital and AFD, respectively, are excessive and, therefore,
         constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.

Alliance Capital and AFD believe that plaintiff's allegations are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these
allegations.


AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL: Judge Signs Settlement, $198,000 if Merger Occurs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2001, a Settlement Fairness Hearing was held before the
District Court of Boulder County, Colorado to review the proposed
settlement of the class action civil lawsuits filed in connection with
the proposed merger of American Educational Products, Inc. and G.C.
Associates Holding Corporation.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge signed the final settlement
order and dismissed all claims. The settlement requires the Company to
pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses in the amount of $198,000
if the merger is consummated.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Files Certification Appeal, Disputes Damages Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of royalty owners purporting to represent RME Holding Company's
gas royalty owners in Texas (Neinast, et al.) was granted class action
certification in December 1999, by the 21st Judicial District Court of
Washington County, Texas, in connection with a gas royalty underpayment
case against ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION.

This certification did not constitute a review by the Court of the
merits of the claims being asserted. The royalty owners' pleadings did
not specify the damages being claimed, although most recently a demand
for damages in the amount of $100 million has been asserted.

The Company is of the opinion that the amount of damages at risk is
substantially less than the amount demanded by the class action counsel
and the Company intends to vigorously assert its defenses. The Company
is currently appealing the class certification order. A decision on the
class certification is expected during the second quarter of 2001.


ARVIDA JMB: $1.4 M Homeowners Claim Back in Dade County Circuit Court  
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ARVIDA/JMP PARTNERS, L.P. has been named a defendant in a purported
class action entitled Lakes of the Meadow Village Homes, Condominium
Nos. One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine
Maintenance Associates, Inc., v. Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. and Walt
Disney World Company, Case No. 95- 23003-CA-08, filed in the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County,
Florida.  

The original complaint was filed on or about November 27, 1995 and an
amended complaint, which purports to be a class action, was filed on or
about February 28, 1997.  In the case, plaintiffs seek damages,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the 460 building units they
allegedly represent for alleged damages discovered in the course of
making Hurricane Andrew repairs, among others.  

Plaintiffs allege that Walt Disney World Company is responsible for
liabilities that may arise in connection with approximately 80% of the
buildings at the Lakes of the Meadow Village Homes and that the
Partnership is potentially liable for the approximately 20% remaining
amount of the buildings.  

In the three count amended complaint, plaintiffs allege breach of
building codes and breach of implied warranties.  In addition,
plaintiffs seek rescission and cancellation of various general releases
obtained by the Partnership in the course of the turnover of the
community to the residents.  

Previously, the trial court had granted the Partnership summary
judgment against the plaintiffs' claims, based on the releases obtained
by the Partnership.  The ruling was reversed on appeal. The appellate
court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings
after finding that there were issues of material fact, which precluded
the entry of judgment for the Partnership.

On or about April 9, 1999, plaintiffs supplied a budget estimate for
repairs of the alleged defects and damages based on a limited survey of
nine buildings, only, out of a total of 115 buildings. Based on this
limited survey and assuming that the same alleged defects and damages
show up with the same frequency in the entire 460 building units,
plaintiffs estimate the total repairs to cost approximately $7.0
million.

Based on the allegations of the amended complaint, it would appear
plaintiffs would seek to hold the Partnership responsible for
approximately $1.4 million of this amount.  

Discovery in this litigation is in its early stages.  The Partnership
has not had an opportunity to examine all of the buildings nor fully
assess the alleged merits of the plaintiffs' report.

The Partnership is currently being defended by counsel for one of its
insurance carriers.  The Partnership has agreed in principle to settle
the claims brought in connection with Lakes of the Meadows Village
Homes Condominium No. 8 Maintenance Association, Inc. for a payment of
$155,000 to be funded by one of the Partnership's insurance carriers.  
The Partnership can give no assurance that the settlement will be
consummated.


CORVIS CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Corvis Corporation (Nasdaq: CORV) securities
during the period between July 28, 2000 and May 17, 2001, inclusive
against Corvis, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of
its underwriters.

The case name and index numbers are Ross v. Corvis Corporation [01-CV-
4214]. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP website at http://www.whafh.com.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Corvis common stock pursuant to the IPO
without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated shares to customers at the IPO price.
To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher
prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of Corvis rocketed upward (a
practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did)
drive the share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying Corvis stock at the IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket
prices.

For additional information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone
at (800) 575-0735 (Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Michael Miske, Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., George Peters, Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.), via e-mail
at classmember@whafh.com or visit its website at http://www.whafh.com.


DONEGAL GROUP: Opts to Settle with Shareholders to Avoid Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 2001, an action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the Mutual Company, DONEGAL GROUP, INC. and
its directors. The action was filed derivatively on behalf of the
Company and as a class action on behalf of the holders of the Company's
common stock other than the Company, the Company's directors, the
Mutual Company and their associates and affiliates.

The action challenged the compliance of the Amendment to the Company's
Charter, the Reverse Split and the Stock Dividend with certain
provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law and asserted a
violation of fiduciary duties by the Mutual Company and the directors
of the Company.

The action also made certain allegations regarding the grant of stock
options to certain persons and the manner in which the Coordinating
Committee of the Boards of Directors of the Company and the Mutual
Company operates.

The Company, its Board of Directors, and the Mutual Company deny the
allegations in the action, and believe the actions taken in connection
with the Amendment to the Company's Charter, the reverse Split and the
Stock Dividend were appropriate and in the best interest of all of the
Company's stockholders.

However, rather than engage in protracted and extensive litigation, the
Company, its directors, and the Mutual Company entered into an
agreement, which is subject to court approval, settling the litigation.

As part of the agreement, the Company agreed to various administrative
changes related to the reverse Split and Stock Dividend, which were
approved by the Company's Stockholders on April 19, 2001.

Upon court approval of the settlement, it is anticipated that the
Company and the Mutual Company will be obligated to pay certain legal
fees to the plaintiff's counsel as determined by the court.


DYNEGY INC.: Plaintiffs Request Suits Be Remanded to California Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following five class action lawsuits have been filed against
various Dynegy entities, including Dynegy Inc. and Dynegy Power
Marketing Inc.:

     1. Gordon v. Reliant Energy Inc., et al. was filed on
        November 27, 2000 in San Diego Superior Court. The defendants
        subsequently removed the case to United States District Court
        for the Southern District of California. The named plaintiffs
        have filed a motion to remand the case to the state court.
        Plaintiffs' motion is awaiting a hearing.

     2. Hendricks v. Dynegy Power Marketing Inc., et al. was filed on
        November 29, 2000 in San Diego Superior Court. The defendants
        subsequently removed the case to the United States District
        Court for the Southern District of California. The named
        plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the state
        court. Plaintiffs' motion is awaiting a hearing.

     3. People of the State of California v. Dynegy Power Marketing
        Inc., et al. was filed on January 18, 2001 in San Francisco
        Superior Court. The defendants subsequently removed the case to
        the United States District Court for the Northern District of
        California. The named plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand
        the case to the state court. Plaintiffs' motion is awaiting a
        hearing.

     4. Pier 23 Restaurant v. PG& E Energy Trading, et al. was filed on
        January 24, 2001 in San Francisco Superior Court. The
        defendants subsequently removed the case to the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of California. The
        named plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the
        state court. Plaintiffs' motion is awaiting a hearing.

     5. Sweetwater Authority et al. v. Dynegy Inc., et al. was filed on
        January 16, 2001 in San Diego Superior Court. The defendants
        subsequently removed the case to the United States District
        Court for the Southern District of California. The named
        plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the state
        court. Plaintiffs' motion is awaiting a hearing.

The five class action lawsuits are based on the events occurring in the
California power market during the summer of 2000. The complaints
allege violations of California's Business and Professions Code, Unfair
Trade Practices Act and various other statutes.

Specifically, the named plaintiffs allege that the defendants,
including the owners of in-state generation and various power
marketers, conspired to manipulate the California wholesale power
market to the detriment of California consumers.

Included among the acts forming the basis of the plaintiffs' claims are
the alleged improper sharing of generation outage data, improper
withholding of generation capacity and the manipulation of power
market bid practices. The plaintiffs seek unspecified treble damages.

The five lawsuits are at preliminary stages. Defendants have yet to
file answers and, as noted above, the suits have been removed to
federal court.

The named plaintiffs have filed motions to remand the cases back to
California state court. The California federal judges originally
assigned to the lawsuits have recused themselves on the basis that they
and their families have an economic stake in the litigation.

Visiting federal judges, that is,  federal judges from states other
than California, will be assigned to the lawsuits. The defendants have
invoked federal multi-district litigation procedures and it is possible
that the multi-district panel, comprised of federal judges, will decide
certain preliminary issues, including the motions to remand.

The defendants in the five lawsuits have formed various joint defense
groups in an effort to coordinate the defense of the claims and to
share certain costs of defense. The Company believes the allegations
are without merit and will vigorously defend these claims.

In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with
respect to these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the
financial position or results of operations of the Company.


EL PASO: Quinque Plaint Returned to Kansas for Further Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Energy Partners LP have been named a defendant in Quinque
Operating Company, et al v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et
al, filed in 1999 in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas. This
class action complaint alleges that the defendants mismeasured natural
gas volumes and heating content of natural gas on non-federal and non-
Native American lands. The Quinque complaint, was transferred to the
same court handling the Grynberg complaint, and has now been sent back
to Kansas State Court for further proceedings.  

The Grynberg complaint was filed by Jack Grynberg, on behalf of the
United States Government, under the False Claims Act. Generally, these
complaints allege an industry-wide conspiracy to under report the
heating value as well as the volumes of the natural gas produced from
federal and Native American lands, which deprived the United States
Government of royalties.


EL PASO: Two Add'l Gas Pricing-related Suits Filed In California
----------------------------------------------------------------
In late 2000, El Paso Merchant Energy and several subsidiaries of EL
PASO TENNESSEE PIPELINE CO. were named as defendants in four purported
class action lawsuits filed in state courts in Los Angeles and San
Diego, California.

Two of these cases, filed in Los Angeles, contend, generally that the
Company's entities conspired with other unrelated companies to create
artificially high prices for natural gas in California.

The other two cases, filed in San Diego, assert that the Company and
its subsidiaries used EPME's acquisition of capacity on the El Paso
Natural Gas Company pipeline system to manipulate the market for
natural gas in California. The Company has remanded each of these cases
to the federal courts in California and has filed motions to dismiss in
the San Diego actions.

In addition, three additional lawsuits were filed, with two filed in
Los Angeles on March 20, 2001, and the third filed on March 22, 2001,
on behalf of a purported class in San Francisco.


FIRST DATA: Awaits Resolution of Appeal by Objectors to Settlement Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, five putative class actions based on similar factual
allegations were filed in United States District Courts, a California
state court and a Texas state court against, among others, FIRST DATA
CORPORATION or its subsidiaries, including its Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. subsidiary.

The plaintiffs in these actions claim that an undisclosed "commission"
is charged by the Company or its subsidiaries when consumers transmit
money to Mexico, in that the exchange rate used in these transactions
is less favorable than the exchange rate that the Company or its
subsidiaries receive when they trade dollars in the international
money market.

The plaintiffs assert that the Company and its subsidiaries violated
the law by failing to disclose this "commission" in advertising and in
the transactions.

Some of the plaintiffs also assert that the Company or its subsidiaries
have discriminated against persons who use their services to transmit
money to Mexico, in that the difference between the market exchange
rate and the exchange rate used by Western Union in the Mexico
transactions is greater than the difference between the market and
exchange rates used by the Company or its subsidiaries when
transmitting funds to other countries.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief, imposition
of a constructive trust, restitution, compensatory and statutory
damages, statutory penalties and punitive damages.

The parties to some of these actions reached proposed settlements.
Under the proposed settlement, the Company will establish a charitable
fund for the advancement of Mexican and Mexican-American causes in the
amount of $4 million. Western Union also will issue coupons for
discounts on future money transfer transactions to Mexico to its
customers who transferred money from the U.S. to Mexico between January
1, 1987 and August 31, 1999.

In addition, the Company will issue coupons for discounts on future
Western Union transactions to customers who transferred money to Mexico
from January 1, 1988 to December 10, 1996 using the MoneyGram service
because MoneyGram was previously operated by a subsidiary of the
Company. The proposed settlement also includes reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs as well as the costs of settlement notice and
administration.

On December 21, 2000, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted final approval of the proposed settlement
and entered a final judgment. In approving the settlement, the Court
permanently enjoined the continued prosecution of the other actions.

In January 2001, notices of appeal from the final judgment were filed
in two of the actions by some of the class members who objected to the
settlement in the respective action.


FIRST DATA: Lines Up Strong Defense Against $500 Million Damage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 11, 2000, a subsequent putative class action that makes
allegations similar to the allegations described above was filed in a
California state court against FIRST DATA CORPORATION and its
subsidiaries, Western Union Financial Services, Inc. and Orlandi
Valuta.

The putative class consists of those persons who have used Western
Union's or Orlandi Valuta's services after August 31, 1999 to transmit
money from California to Mexico, or who have used the Western Union or
Orlandi Valuta money transfer services to transmit money from
California to Mexico and have opted out of one of the nationwide
settlements discussed above.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive
trust, an accounting, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages
alleged to be in excess of $500,000,000, statutory penalties in an
amount of $1,000 for each offense, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
prejudgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company is vigorously
defending this action.


FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Court Dismisses James Second Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
The James second amended class action against FOCUS Enhancements, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FCSE), was dismissed May 10, by the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued an Order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the James
second amended class action complaint in its entirety.

The alleged James class period purported to represent investors who
purchased Focus stock between November 15, 1999 and March 1, 2000. The
James second amended class action was the consolidation of fourteen
different complaints that were filed in the District Court in March
2000.

With respect to the alleged Ridel class action, which purports to
represent investors who purchased Focus stock between July 17, 1997 and
February 19, 1999, the District Court, also on May 10, 2001, granted
certain portions of the Company's motion to dismiss and denied other
portions, allowing the case to go forward into pretrial discovery as to
certain matters.

Michael D'Addio, CEO of Focus Enhancements said, "We are pleased that
the Court has dismissed the James complaint and has restricted the
scope of the Ridel complaint. The elimination of James from our agenda
will better allow management to concentrate on the fundamentals of our
business. We believe that there is no merit to the Ridel action and
will continue to vigorously provide a strong defense."


GENERAL MOTORS: 83 percent Want Cash Offer in Pickup Truck Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The response to the cash-for-coupon offer by class attorneys in the
General Motors pickup truck class action settlement is exceeding
expectations, signaling strong consumer support for the cash-offer
concept, say officials involved with the program.

Of the more than one million letters received so far, 83 percent are
opting for the cash alternative offer.

"We're extremely pleased with the response of truck owners,
particularly in light of GM's efforts to discredit the program and
dampen the secondary market," said James R. Dawley, chairman and CEO of
Houston-based Certificate Redemption Group (CRG). Dawley's company is
responsible for creating the secondary market for the cash offer to
class members of the GM settlement.

"However, we estimate that 373,000 qualified class members haven't
received their letter and application for certificate from GM and
thousands of people are calling us to complain about GM being
unavailable to help. In fact, they can't even find a way to contact GM
since GM closed down its toll-free helpline weeks ago. That letter is
key to making the program work and we don't want any class member to be
denied the opportunity to participate if they qualify," said Dawley.

As a result, class members who fall into this group will be given until
May 20 to register with CRG, but then have until July 20 to send in
their application for certificate, which they will still need to get
from GM. Consumers can register by phoning CRG's national hotline,
accessing its Web site, or mailing in their cash alternative form by
May 20, 2001. After that, the cash offer drops to $75. CRG's national
hotline is 1-800-317-4997; the Web address is
www.CertificateRebates.com.

On April 18, both General Motors and class counsel sent separate
letters to 5.8 million owners of GM pickup trucks equipped with
sidesaddle fuel tanks. GM's letter included an "application for
certificate" worth $1,000 to the class member toward the purchase of a
new GM vehicle, or $250-$500 when transferred to a third party. Class
counsel's letter included an offer from CRG to buy the coupon for $100
cash if the truck owner had no use for it.

"Since the mailing went out 30 days ago, class members have returned
nearly 1.2 million completed forms. Of those processed so far, 83 per
cent have opted for the $100 cash offer," said Dawley. "At that rate,
we believe more than one million class members will ultimately accept
our cash offer and that will allow us to return up to $100 million to
class members. If that happens, we will have achieved our primary goal
of getting cash into the hands of more class members than any other
comparable class action settlement. Of course, this only happens if GM
doesn't succeed in their efforts to take these benefits away from class
members."

GM continues to challenge the settlement in court, while two
Washington, DC-based public interest groups -- Public Citizen and
Center for Auto Safety -- support CRG's cash alternative offer as a way
of getting cash into the hands of class members who typically get
nothing in class action lawsuits.

According to Don Barrett, lead class counsel, public opinion is clearly
against General Motors. "The thousands of class members we've talked to
think GM has been acting like Goliath trying to beat down David. And
despite GM's efforts to thwart the program and confuse class members,
we're still here representing the class members to get them what they
deserve, and we will ultimately succeed."

The lawsuit was launched in 1992 because GM full-size pickup trucks
with sidesaddle fuel tanks were allegedly more prone to fiery
explosions in side-impact collisions. The sidesaddle design was used on
trucks made from 1973-1991 and located the fuel tanks outside the
truck's frame rails, making them more susceptible to damage. After nine
years of legal haggling, General Motors finally agreed to comply with
the settlement but now is attempting to create legal and administrative
roadblocks, said Barrett.

Houston-based Certificate Redemption Group LLC was formed in 1996 for
the purpose of creating a secondary market for GM certificates in the
GM pickup truck class settlement. CRG is the exclusive secondary market
maker endorsed and supported by class counsel for the GM Full-Size
Pickup Settlement.


HARMONIC INC.: Securities Suits Dismissal Hearing May Be Moved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several securities class actions
alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Harmonic Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors were filed in or removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Court entered orders relating and consolidating all of the
securities class actions and permitting plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint.

On November 27, 2000, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. On December 7, 2000, plaintiffs filed a "corrected"
consolidated amended complaint. The Complaint is brought on behalf of a
purported class of persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between January 19 and June 26, 2000. The Complaint also
alleges claims on behalf of a purported subclass of persons who
purchased C-Cube securities between January 19 and May
3, 2000.

In addition to the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
the complaint also names C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and several of its
officers and directors as defendants. The Complaint alleges that, by
making false or misleading statements regarding the Company's prospects
and customers and its acquisition of C-Cube, the defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint also alleges that the defendants violated section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading registration statement,
prospectus, and joint proxy in connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

On February 13, 2001, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Complaint. Although a hearing is scheduled for May 23, 2001, the
parties currently are discussing the possibility of moving the hearing
to accommodate a scheduling conflict.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Deadline to Answer Shareholders Suit Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2000, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
District Court, Clark County, Nevada (Tharp v. Herbalife International,
Inc., et al.). This lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary obligations
by the directors and majority stockholder of HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL,
INC. in connection with the adoption by the Company of the Preferred
Share Purchase Rights Plan and the rejection of a purported offer by a
third party to acquire a controlling interest in the Company.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit request (1) an order compelling the
individual defendants to take steps to "expose Herbalife to the
marketplace in an effort to create an active auction of the Company",
(2) an order enjoining the defendants in office, (3) unspecified
damages, and (4) other relief.

The Company has not yet answered the complaint. The deadline for
answering the complaint has been extended by mutual agreement of the
parties to May 29, 2001.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations contained in this litigation. However, an adverse result in
this litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition and operating results.


OPUS360 CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who
purchased the securities of Opus360 Corp., (Nasdaq: OPUS) at, or
traceable to, Opus' April 7, 2000 initial public offering and through
March 20, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Opus, Ari Horowitz (Chief
Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board), Richard Miller (President
and Chief Operating Officer), Richard McCann (Chief Financial Officer
until September 11, 2000); Opus directors John Halvey, James Cannavino,
John Drew, Irwin Lieber, William Nuti, Barry Rubinstein, and Roger
Weiss; co-lead underwriters FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., J.P.
Morgan Securities Inc., E*Offering Corp., and Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.;
and selling shareholders Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., and CompuCom
Systems, Inc. with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On April 7, 2000, Opus commenced an IPO of 7 million of its shares of
common stock at an offering price of $10 per share. In addition,
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., and CompuCom Systems, Inc., together sold
700,000 shares of Opus common stock at $10 per share on April 7, 2000.

In connection therewith, Opus filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the
Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) OPUS XCHANGE, a product that the Prospectus touted as a
         sophisticated professional matching and project management
         software system, was fatally flawed and could not perform many
         of the functions detailed in the Prospectus; and

    (ii) that Opus had no basis for stating that the funds earned from
         the IPO would suffice to fund its aggressive expansion plan
         for at least 12 months following the IPO without additional
         financing.

On March 20, 2001, Opus filed with the SEC its financial results for
the year 2000, on Form 10-K. The 10-K contained a letter from KPMG,
LLP, Opus' outside auditors, which revealed that there was a
substantial doubt about Opus' ability to continue as a going concern.
Opus' common stock closed at $0.13 per share on April 20, 2001 -- a 98%
decrease from the IPO price of $10 per share.


For more information, contact: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices
of Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106, by telephone at 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999,
by facsimile at 215-440-9475, by e-mail at Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's website at http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182
                              

OVERHILL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
During fiscal 1997, five substantially identical complaints were filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
Overhill Corporation and certain of its current and past officers and
directors.

The complaints each sought certification as a class action and asserted
liability based on alleged misrepresentations that the plaintiffs
claimed resulted in the market price of the Company's stock being
artificially inflated. Without certifying the cases as class actions,
the District Court consolidated the cases into a single action.

In March 2000, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
against one of the Company's officers and directors and restricted the
plaintiffs from pursuing a number of their claims against the other
defendants.

The Court also granted the remaining defendants leave to file motions
for summary judgment. Motions for summary judgment were thereafter
filed pointing out that the evidence did not support the plaintiffs'
claims.

In November 2000, in a lengthy decision addressing the plaintiffs'
claims against each of the remaining defendants, the Court granted the
motions for summary judgment, thereby disposing of all of the claims
asserted by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs then filed a motion for rehearing, which the Court
denied in March 2001. The decision in these suits that the Company
maintained all along were without merit, has now been appealed by the
plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    
PDV AMERICA: Agrees to Indemnify UNO-VEN Company Against Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four former marketers of The UNO-VEN Company have filed a class action
complaint against UNO-VEN alleging improper termination of the UNO-VEN
Marketer Sales Agreement under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act in
connection with the 1997 acquisition of Unocal's interest in UNO-VEN by
PDV Midwest Refining LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of PDV AMERICA,
INC.

This class action has been certified for liability purposes. The
lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. PDVMR has
filed a motion for summary judgment. PDV AMERICA and all its
subsidiaries, including PDVMR, jointly and severally, have agreed to
indemnify UNO-VEN and certain other related entities against certain
liabilities and claims, including this matter.

        
PHOENIX LEASING: Discovery on Ash Complaint Filed In Sacramento Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 1997, a Class Action Complaint was filed against Phoenix
Leasing Inc., Phoenix Leasing Associates, II and III L.P., Phoenix   
Securities Inc. and Phoenix American Inc. in California Superior Court
for the County of Sacramento by eleven individuals on behalf of
investors in Phoenix Leasing Cash Distribution Funds I through V.  The
Companies were served with the Complaint on December 9, 1997.

The Complaint sought declaratory and other relief including accounting,
receivership, imposition of constructive trust and judicial
dissolution and winding up of the Partnerships, and damages based on
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract by the Companies
as general partners of the Partnerships.

Plaintiffs severed one cause of action from the Complaint, a claim
related to the marketing and sale of Cash Distribution Fund V, and
transferred it to Marin County Superior Court.  Plaintiffs then
dismissed the remaining claims in Sacramento Superior Court and re-
filed them in a separate lawsuit making similar allegations (the Ash
Action).

The Ash complaint includes six causes of action:  

     (i) breach of fiduciary duty,  

    (ii) constructive fraud,  

   (iii) judicial dissolution of Cash Distribution Fund IV,

    (iv) judicial dissolution of Cash Distribution Fund V,

     (v) accounting and

    (vi) alter ego.

The Companies recently answered the complaint and discovery has
commenced.  The plaintiffs' depositions have been taken, and
plaintiffs recently took depositions of the Companies.


PRESSTEK INC.: Settlement Pact Required 808,050 Shares in First Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2000, Presstek, Inc. entered into an agreement with the
plaintiffs in several class actions lawsuits consolidated under the
common caption "Bill Berke, et al. v. Presstek, Inc., et al." in the
United States District Court, District of New Hampshire to settle the
class action lawsuit.

The Company also executed a memorandum of understanding with respect to
the settlement of the derivative lawsuits, filed on behalf of the
Company, one in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware and the
other in the United States District Court, District of New Hampshire.

Under the terms of the class action settlement, $22.0 million, in the
form of 1,245,246 shares of the Company's common stock, was to be paid
to the class. The Company issued 437,196 of such shares during the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2000, and issued 808,050 of such shares during
the first quarter of fiscal 2001.

In the memorandum of understanding in the derivative litigation, the
Company agreed to issue 60,582 shares of common stock and has agreed to
certain therapeutic improvements to its internal policies, some of
which have already been instituted. The Company issued 60,582 of such
shares in the third quarter of fiscal 2000.

As a result of these issuances, all shares of common stock required to
be issued under both the class action settlement and the memorandum of
understanding in the derivative litigation have been issued. The
Company recorded a charge of $23.2 million in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 1999 related to the settlements, $22.9 million of which was
recorded as a long-term liability.


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Lawsuit in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of all
persons who acquired Purchasepro.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: PPRO) common stock
between February 12, 2001 and April 25, 2001.

The case is pending in the District Court of Nevada (CV-S-01-0489-KJD-
RJJ). Named as defendants in the complaint are Purchasepro and Charles
Johnson, Jr., Purchasepro's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading information that misrepresented the
Company's financial condition and prospects. The complaint alleges that
defendants improperly recognized revenue in order to artificially
inflate the price of Purchasepro's common stock.

The complaint further alleges that defendant Johnson was motivated to
inflate the price of Purchasepro's stock because he had used his
stockholdings as collateral to borrow million of dollars and would be
force to sell his stock if the loan to value ratio was less than 25%.

Defendants' misrepresentations caused the price of Purchasepro common
stock securities to be artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period.

For more details, contact: Patricia Toher or Nancy Kaboolian of Abbey
Gardy, LLP at 800/889-3701 or email ptoher@abbeygardy.com or
nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com.


RESOURCES ACCRUED: Proposed Settlement Agreement On Table
---------------------------------------------------------
On or about May 19, 2000, Dr. Warren Heller, a limited partner,
commenced a punitive class action and derivative lawsuit in the
Delaware Chancery Court seeking, among other things, monetary damages
resulting from purported breaches of fiduciary duties and breaches of
the partnership agreement in connection with the March 1999 sale of the
Harborista loan and the marketing of the property which secured the
Harborista loan.

In addition, the action alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the purported failure of RESOURCES ACCRUED MORTGAGE
INVESTORS 2, L.P. to distribute cash and the purported failure of the
Company to enforce the provisions of the loan secured by the Reno,
Nevada property.

The defendants have preliminarily agreed to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding settling this lawsuit. As currently contemplated, the
MOU:

     (i) provides for an $8,000,000 payment by the defendants to the
         Partnership and

    (ii) requires that the Company distribute to its partners the
         $8,000,000 payment, less fees and expenses awarded by the
         court to plaintiff's counsel (which amount is not expected to
         exceed 20% of the settlement amount), along with $1,000,000 of
         the Company's cash reserves.

The MOU is subject to many conditions including execution of a
definitive settlement agreement, completion of discovery by plaintiffs
and court approval of the settlement following notice to limited
partners.

Discovery is currently ongoing and it is anticipated that discovery
will be concluded in the second quarter of 2001. Accordingly, there can
be no assurance that the settlement will be consummated on the terms
currently contemplated or that the settlement will be consummated at
all.


                                   
ROLLINS INC.: Butland Case May Qualify as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
One of Rollins Inc. subsidiaries, Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., is
a named defendant in Butland et al. v. Orkin Exterminating
Company, Inc. et al. pending in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County, Tampa, Florida.

The plaintiffs filed suit in March of 1999 and are seeking monetary
damages in excess of $15,000 for each named plaintiff and injunctive
relief for alleged breach of contract, fraud and various violations of
Florida State law.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs contend that the case is suitable for
a class action. The Court may rule in December 2001 on whether the
class should be certified and their case should proceed as a class
action. The Company believes this case to be without merit and intends
to defend itself aggressively through trial, if necessary.

At this time, the final outcome of the litigation cannot be determined.
However, it is the opinion of Management that the ultimate resolution
of this action will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


SEAVIEW VIDEO: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., on behalf of its client,
filed a class action Thursday in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of purchasers
of SeaView Video Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:SEVU.OB) during the period
between March 30, 2000 and March 19, 2001, inclusive, Civil Action No.
8:01-CV-957-T-26 EAJ and which has been assigned to the Honorable
Richard A. Lazzara.

The complaint alleges that defendants SeaView Video Technology Inc. and
Richard McBride, President and Chief Executive Officer of SeaView
during the Class Period, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing
a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning, inter
alia, SeaView's expected revenue for 2000, its reported revenue for the
second and third quarter of 2000, the demand for its products, and its
ability to manufacture sufficient product to meet the purported demand.

Specifically, defendants had led the market to believe SeaView would
have gross sales of $46 million in 2000, yet gross sales ended up being
slightly over $1 million.

In addition, on March 19, 2001, the Company announced that it had
determined that there were inaccuracies in its financial statements for
the quarters ended June 30, 2000 and September 30, 2000 with regard to
recognition of revenue as related to certain purchase orders. The
restated revenue for those two quarters reduced revenue from $4 million
collectively to approximately $550,000.

For further information, contact either of the following: Steven J.
Toll, Esq. Robert M. Smits Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower Washington, D.C.
20005 Telephone: 888/240-0775 or 202/408-4600 E-mail address:
stoll@cmht.com, rsmits@cmht.com


SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION: Court Has Yet To Rule on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------------
During 2000, twelve complaints were filed against Serologicals
Corporation and certain of its current and former executive officers
and directors which allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) thereof and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

During the third quarter of 2000, the complaints were consolidated and
a lead plaintiff was named. A consolidated complaint was filed on
October 10, 2000, which also seeks the court's certification of the
litigation as class action on behalf of all purchases of the Company's
stock between April 27, 1999 and April 10, 2000.

On November 30, 2000, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 17, 2001, the
plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On April 20,
2001, a hearing was held on the motion to dismiss.

The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint. Although the Company considers all of the claims in the
consolidated complaint to be without merit and intends to defend the
lawsuits vigorously, management is unable to predict at this time the
final outcome of these claims.


SOUTHWESTERN LIFE: Has Accrued $4.7 MM in Add'l Liabilities  
-----------------------------------------------------------
During 1999, Security Life and Trust Company, which merged into
SOUTHWESTERN LIFE HOLDINGS, INC., initiated a voluntary exchange
program which enabled policyholders of such life insurance products to
terminate their policies and, in exchange for the termination of the
original policy and a release, obtain either (i) the refund of all
premiums paid and other consideration or (ii) another Security Life
life insurance product.

On November 5, 1999, Security Life was served with a petition filed in
the state District Court in Dallas County, Texas, asserting a class
action concerning such policies.  

The petition alleged that Security Life waived the right to charge
cost of insurance after the eighth policy year on such non-smoker
policies and to increase cost of insurance charges on such smoker
policies.  

The petition alleged Security Life made these waivers through its
marketing pieces and statements by its officers.  The petition also
alleged that not all of the facts were outlined in Security Life's
communication to its policyholders describing the voluntary exchange
program and therefore that program was deceptive.

The petition asked for declaratory judgment concerning the rights of
the plaintiffs and the class of policyholders of such policies and for
attorney's fees.

The petition also asked for, among other things, an injunction to
prevent Security Life from charging cost of insurance on such non-
smoker policies or increasing cost of insurance charges on such
smoker policies after the eighth policy year, and requested the court
to rule that the releases signed by any such policyholders under the
voluntary exchange program were null and void and those policyholders
who signed the releases be given the option of reinstating their
policies.  

On August 30, 2000, the lawsuit was amended to add a claim that
Security Life had improperly reduced the interest rates credited to
accumulated values in such policies in an effort to offset losses
incurred by Security Life on those policies.

Security Life denied all of the allegations in the lawsuit.  However,
because of the substantial expense and uncertainty associated with
class action litigation, Security Life entered into an agreement to
settle the lawsuit dated September 7, 2000 pursuant to which:

     (i) legal fees of approximately $1.3 million were to be paid to
         plaintiffs' counsel,  

    (ii) certain changes were to be made to the terms of  Concept  90  
         policies remaining in force or reinstated pursuant to the
         settlement, and

   (iii) certain optional in-kind relief (which included the option
         to seek reinstatement of Concept 90 policies no longer in
         force) was to be provided to the plaintiffs  pursuant to
         elections made by individual plaintiffs within a specified  
         time period and in a specified  manner with respect to their
         current or former Concept 90 policies.  The settlement was
         expressly subject to approval by the court.

On September 8, 2000, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and ordered that notice be sent to all class members.  The
court granted final approval of the settlement at a hearing held on
November 17, 2000, and the period for appeal of that ruling expired
prior to the end of 2000.  Thus, the settlement is now final and is
being implemented.

As of March 31, 2001, the Company had accrued $4.7 million of
additional policy liabilities in connection with the settlement.  


SPACELABS MEDICAL: Race Discrimination Lawsuit Remains Uncertified
------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 21, 2001, six named plaintiffs filed a purported class action
in Superior Court King County Washington on behalf of themselves and
others allegedly similarly situated, alleging national origin
discrimination and other claims arising out of certain alleged terms
and conditions of employment and termination of certain Hispanic
employees at SPACELABS MEDICAL, INC.

The Company was served with the complaint on April 12, 2001 and filed
an answer on May 2, 2001 denying liability. To date the class has not
been certified. The complaint seeks class certification, judgment of no
less than $10,000,000, incidental and consequential damages, interest,
and costs.

While the outcome of these proceedings cannot be predicted with
certainty, management does not believe the complaint is meritorious and
intends to vigorously defend the Company's interests. No amounts have
been accrued for this matter as of March 31, 2001.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Plans Outlined to Improve Disabled Access by 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE:THC) and Access Now, Inc. announced
today that they have reached agreement on a nationwide plan to improve
access for the disabled at all Tenet acute care hospitals and related
facilities across the country.

The court-approved agreement concludes a class-action lawsuit filed by
Access Now against Tenet in November 1997 that sought to assure Tenet's
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In collaboration
with Access Now, Tenet will develop individual compliance plans for 15
to 20 of its facilities each year. Each plan will be submitted for
approval to U.S. District Judge Alan S. Gold in Miami.

All improvements will be designed to help provide equal access to Tenet
facilities for those with hearing, vision and mobility impairments.
Work at all facilities is scheduled to be completed in seven to ten
years.

Both parties called the settlement a positive, forward-looking outcome.

"Tenet voluntarily agreed to do this because improved access for the
disabled is an essential part of the commitment we have made to provide
quality care and service to all patients and their families," said
Thomas B. Mackey, chief operating officer in Tenet's Office of the
President. "We see this as part of our responsibility as a leader in
bringing change and improvement to the health care delivery system."

"We are very pleased to have settled with Tenet regarding improved
access at all its hospitals and related health care facilities
throughout the nation," said Edward Resnick, president of Access Now,
the national disability rights organization that brought the lawsuit.

"We commend Tenet on its awareness of and sensitivity to the medical
needs of the disabled community. Tenet has become a model on which
others can base their own efforts to extend accessible care to millions
of disabled Americans. Together, we are doing good for many people," he
said.

At a court hearing on Feb. 2, Judge Gold also praised the agreement. "I
think you have achieved something here that is unique and precedential
for those who are looking to deal with these types of issues in the
future, and I have to assume that will occur fairly often."      


UNITED TRUST: Discovery Begun On Proposed New Class Representatives
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 1999, David A. Morlan and Louis Black vs. Universal
Guaranty Life Insurance Company and United Trust Insurance Company
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, No. 99-274-PER)
was filed against Universal Guaranty Life Insurance Company on behalf
of the two named individuals.

The plaintiffs were former insurance salesmen of United Trust Assurance
Company (merged into UG in 1992). The plaintiffs are alleging that
their employment status was as an employee rather than an independent
contractor and allege violation of various employment laws.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status and judgment for fair
and reasonable employee benefits. Class status was certified on October
26, 2000.

Since the certification of the class action, Louis Black dropped out as
a class representative. Due to David Morlan having filed bankruptcy
prior to instituting the action, the Court has opined that he may not
maintain the action.

As a result, three new class representatives have been proposed.
Discovery was recently begun to determine the adequacy of the three
newly proposed class representatives. Although the proposed trial month
is May 2001, it would appear premature since questions regarding the
three newly proposed class representatives have not been
resolved and notification to the class has not yet occurred. As a
result, a request is pending to reestablish a trial date.


VENTANA MEDICAL: Hearing of Leung Suit Appeal to SC Expected This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 1, 1999, a shareholder derivative and class action suit was
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware entitled LEUNG
v. VENTANA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 17089. Plaintiff
alleges breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract relating to the
Company's merger with BioTek and the related conversion of BioTek notes
into Ventana notes, as well as the Company's decision to compensate two
of its directors by selling Ventana stock to them at a fixed price.

On May 6, 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, to stay this action in favor of the federal securities
action. These motions were heard on October 18, 1999, and on February
29, 2000, the Court granted the motion, dismissing the action in its
entirety.

Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on October 24, 2000, and all
appellate briefing was completed in March 2001. The hearing of this
appeal is not specifically scheduled but the Delaware Supreme Court has
indicated that the hearing will take place in May 2001.


                              *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 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  * * *