CAR_Public/010612.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 12 2001, Vol. 3, No. 114

                              Headlines

AES CORPORATION: Power Manipulation Plaint Moved To S.D. California
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
BANCWEST CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits Over Merger With BNP Paribas
CALIFORNIA: State Faces Potential Liability That Could Exceed $400M
CALIFORNIA: Sued For Alleged Discriminatory Services To The Disabled

CHASE MANHATTAN: Plaintiff's Appeal Of Settlement Pact Without Merit
EATON VANCE: To Put Up Strong Defense Against Boston Securities Suit
EL SITIO: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
ENSTAR CABLE: Illinois Customers Challenge Extra Fee For Delinquency
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Austrian Slaves, Forced Laborers To Be Paid

IVILLAGE INC.: Receives Info Re Securities Suit In S.D. New York
KITTY HAWK: Claims In Four Lawsuits In N.D. Texas Treated As Class 9  
LOS ANGELES: Faces Huge Housing Development Liability Near Gas Depot
LUXOTTICA GROUP: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit In E.D. NY
MAX INTERNET: Consolidated Securities Suit Filed In N.D. Texas

MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Suits Filed Against Subsidiaries
NCI BUILDING: Too Early To Gauge Effect Of Pending Shareholders Suits
NORTHEAST UTILITIES: Settlement Hearing Scheduled July 13
PARACELSUS HEALTHCARE: Attempts To Settle Subsidiary Suits Fail
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settles Securities Lawsuit For $49 Million

REDDI BRAKE: Settlement Agreement Remains Pending After Three Years
REPUBLIC OF POLAND: Jewish Americans File Restitution Claims In NY
SPIEKER PROPERTIES: Shareholder Files Suit Enjoining Merger Agreement
UNO RESTAURANT: To Mount Strong Defense Against DE Shareholder Suit

                              *********


AES CORPORATION: Power Manipulation Plaint Moved To S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2000, AES Corporation was named in a purported class action
suit along with six other defendants alleging unlawful manipulation of
the California wholesale electricity market, resulting in inflated
wholesale electricity prices throughout California.

Alleged causes of action include violation of the Cartwright Act, the
California Unfair Trade Practices Act and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any actions
asserted against it and expects that it will defend itself vigorously
against the allegations.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of purchasers of ATI Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATYT) common
stock during the period from January 13, 2000 through May 24, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges ATI and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.

For additional information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
Client Relations Department: Sue Null, Charlie Gastineau or Jackie
Addison by mail: P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by phone:
1-888-551-9944 (Toll-free) or by email: info@classlawyer.com


BANCWEST CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits Over Merger With BNP Paribas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 7, 2001, eight purported class action suits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against BNP Paribas, BancWest Corporation
and the members of its board of directors.

On May 9, 2001, a BancWest stockholder filed a purported class action
suit (Index No. 321199) in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, against the same defendants and
specified officers of BancWest.

These complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants have
breached fiduciary and other duties to its public stockholders in
connection with BNP Paribas' preliminary proposal to acquire all of
BancWest's outstanding shares that BNP Paribas does not own at a price
of $35 per share.

These complaints variously seek, among other things, a court order
enjoining any proposed transaction with BNP Paribas and an award of
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

"We believe that these complaints are without merit and we intend to
defend them vigorously," the Company said in recent regulatory filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


CALIFORNIA: State Faces Potential Liability That Could Exceed $400M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a recent report by Dreyfus Premier California Municipal
Bond Funds to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the State of
California faces a potential liability that could exceed $400 million.

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 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 a community-based facilities,
and then provided appropriate care.

Dreyfus is a Massachusetts business trust that invests primarily in the
debt securities of the State of California.

     
CALIFORNIA: Sued For Alleged Discriminatory Services To The Disabled
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Of California has filed a responsive pleading and is
vigorously contesting this case, according to a recent report by
Dreyfus Premier California Municipal Bond Funds to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

"At this early state 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,"
the report noted.

Dreyfus is a Massachusetts business trust that invests primarily in the
debt securities of the State of California.

     
CHASE MANHATTAN: Plaintiff's Appeal Of Settlement Pact Without Merit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Several lawsuits have recently been commenced against various credit
card issuers alleging generally that the manner in which customer
payments were credited to accounts resulted in violations of the
related account agreements and state and federal law and unjustified
finance charges, late fees and penalty interest rates.

Two such cases were filed against Chase Manhattan Bank USA in the
federal courts in Texas and California. A court has issued a final
judgment and order approving the class action settlement in its
entirety, and dismissed the lawsuits with prejudice.

One class member who objected to the settlement filed a notice of
appeal from the order, which appeal the Company believes to be without
merit.


EATON VANCE: To Put Up Strong Defense Against Boston Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Vance Corporation announced last week its intention to defend
vigorously against the securities lawsuit filed by shareholders on May
25, 2001.

According to a company press release, the Company and its advisers,
trustees and officers believe the complaint is without merit.

The complaint is currently pending in the federal district court in
Boston.  The suit was filed by two shareholders of one account of EV
Classic Senior Floating-Rate Fund against the Fund, its advisers,
trustees and certain officers.

The Complaint, framed as a class action, alleges that for approximately
two years ending on March 2, 2000, the Fund's assets were incorrectly
valued and certain matters were not properly disclosed, in violation of
the federal securities laws.

Eaton Vance Corp. is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol EV.


EL SITIO: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit last week in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of El Sitio, Inc. (NASDAQ:LCTO) common stock
between December 9, 1999 and June 7, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants El Sitio, Inc., Roberto Vivo-
Chaneton, Roberto Cibrian-Campoy, Horacio Milberg, Alfredo Jimenez de
Arechaga, Carlos Cisneros, Michael Greeley, Guillermo Liberman, Ricardo
Verdaguer, Michael Levitt, and Sofia Pescarmona violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling El Sitio common stock pursuant
to the December 9, 1999 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.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the
Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the El Sitio offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the
IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions.

For further details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull &
Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at
SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


ENSTAR CABLE: Illinois Customers Challenge Extra Fee For Delinquency
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers in Illinois have filed a punitive class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons residing in the state who are or were customers
of the cable television service of Enstar Cable of Macoupin County, and
who have been charged a fee for delinquent payment of their cable bill.

The action challenges the legality of the processing fee and seeks
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

At present, the Company is not able to project the outcome of the
action, said a regulatory document recently filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.



HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Austrian Slaves, Forced Laborers To Be Paid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation will be made to approximately 150,000 slave and forced
laborers of the Nazi period once two class action lawsuits pending
against Austrian companies are resolved, this according to a recent
Associated Press report.  

These lawsuits were brought by the laborers, who alleged that the
companies profited from their work during World War II or conspired
with the Nazis to confiscate their property, which included possessions
such as paintings, real estate and businesses.

The fund for payment totals $371 million, comprised of public money and
funds provided by Austrian business and industry, and will be processed
by the Austrian Reconciliation Fund.  

"From our side, all matters have been clarified," said Ludwig Steiner,
the Fund's chairman. Applications for payment are being received; some
16,000 applications have been approved and are awaiting payment.  

One-time payments will be made according to the type of hardship
endured:  slave laborers to receive $6,500; forced laborers in
industry, $2,200; forced laborers in agriculture, $1,200.  In event of
death, payment will be made to their heirs.


IVILLAGE INC.: Receives Info Re Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
iVillage Inc. (Nasdaq: IVIL), announced last week that it has become
aware of a pending class action lawsuit against the Company, certain
current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters of
its initial public offering of common stock in March 1999, alleging
violations of federal securities law surrounding the company's initial
public offering.

The Company has yet to be served with a copy of the complaint. iVillage
believes that the lawsuit and the claims asserted against it are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

The action, Saul Kassin v. iVillage Inc., et al., was filed in New York
federal court on June 5, 2001 purportedly on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of iVillage Inc. between March 18, 1999 and October 28,
1999 inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks to recover an
unspecified amount of damages.


KITTY HAWK: Claims In Four Lawsuits In N.D. Texas Treated As Class 9  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
During April through July 2000, four purported class action lawsuits
were filed against Kitty Hawk, Inc. and/or certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division:

     (i) Todd Holley v. Kitty Hawk, Inc., M. Tom Christopher and
         Richard Wadsworth, No. 3:00-CV-0828-P;

    (ii) Russell Schwegman v. M. Tom Christopher, Conrad A. Kalitta,
         Richard R. Wadsworth, Jr. and Kitty Hawk, Inc., No. 3:00-CV-   
         0867-P;

   (iii) Dale Crandall v. M. Tom Christopher, Conrad A. Kalitta, and
         Richard R. Wadsworth, Jr., No. 3:00-CV-1102- T; and

    (iv) Charles Landan and Trans American Airlines, Inc. v. M. Tom
         Christopher and Richard R. Wadsworth, Jr., No. 3:00-CV-1623-P.

Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated the United
States securities laws by publicly issuing materially false and
misleading statements and omitting disclosure of material adverse
information regarding Kitty Hawk's business during the period from
April 22, 1999 through April 11, 2000.

Among other things, the complaints allege that the defendants
materially overstated Kitty Hawk's earnings and financial condition by
refusing to disclose that Kitty Hawk had deferred required maintenance
and repairs on its aircraft and engines, and by refusing to timely
write down the value of Kitty Hawk's obsolete aircraft that were beyond
repair.

Each of the complaints alleges that as a result of such alleged
improper actions, the market price of Kitty Hawk's securities was
artificially inflated at the time that the stockholders in the classes
acquired those securities.

In May 2000, the court entered orders in the actions that had named
Kitty Hawk as a defendant staying all claims against Kitty Hawk due to
its filing for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code. The actions were not stayed as to the individual
defendants.

In July 2000, the actions were consolidated into a single action. The
court has entered an agreed scheduling order that requires a
consolidated amended complaint to be filed after the court appoints a
lead plaintiff.

The individual defendants are not required to file a response until
after the consolidated amended complaint is filed.

The Claims against Kitty Hawk, Inc. asserted in these lawsuits are
treated as Class 9 Claims.

         
LOS ANGELES: Faces Huge Housing Development Liability Near Gas Depot
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles City Council is scheduled to meet today to take up the
issue of the Playa Vista Housing Development on the west side of Los
Angeles.

This development is situated at the site of Southern California Gas
Company's Playa del Rey underground gas storage facility.

The Grassroots Coalition and other civic action groups are urging City
officials, including the civil division of the City Attorney's office
and the City Controller, to investigate the potential liability
associated with this development.

In a report issued February 26, 2001, City Controller, Rick Tuttle,
estimates that Los Angeles for the first time surpassed the $1 billion
mark in reported total liability. Of this, approximately $125 million
is made up of current and future damages involving the Rampart police
scandal.

"If the Public Health and Safety issues we believe exist at the Playa
Vista site are ignored and residents are killed or injured," stated
Patricia McPherson, president of Grassroots Coalition, "the resulting
liability could dwarf the Rampart costs."

SoCalGas records indicate that billions of cubic feet of natural gas
are being held at pressures of 1700 pounds per square inch and above in
the partially depleted Playa del Rey oil field that underlies the area.

According to the State Division of Oil and Gas, a network of
underground pipes fans out from the SoCalGas compressor station located
at the edge of the property. These high-pressure injection pipes are
used to force the gas into the geological formations below.

Evidence shows that, once in the ground, the enormous pressure can
force the gas to migrate through the substrata. According to a number
of professional gas migration experts including Oil and Gas
Environmental Consultant, Bernard Endres, PhD, co-author of "Gas
Migration" (Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers), there is no way to
accurately determine if or where the gas may surface.

"We know the gas is going somewhere because, in a recent study by one
of the preeminent experts on underground gas storage, Dr. M. Rasin Tek,
it was determined that one hundred million (100,000,000) cubic feet of
gas disappears from this site each year," Endres said.

"They began pumping natural gas into the Playa del Rey oil field back
in 1942," said McPherson. "But it was farmland then. I don't think
anyone ever expected it to become a residential area."

Dr. Endres observed that, as a result of a catastrophic explosion in a
rural area near Brenham, Texas, involving gas leaking from an
underground storage site, a jury awarded $138 million to twenty-two
victims of the accident. And last January, an explosion associated with
an underground site near Hutchinson, Kansas spawned at least two class
action lawsuits.

"If an explosion half the size of the one in Brenham were to occur in a
densely populated area such as Playa Vista, hundreds would be killed.
Since the City is aware of the gas storage facility and its vicinity to
the development, and is allowing construction to proceed anyway, the
potential for massive damages is staggering," Dr. Endres warned.

"I think the taxpayers of Los Angeles have a right to know that this
development has the potential to financially cripple the city,"
McPherson concluded.


LUXOTTICA GROUP: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit In E.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on behalf of all persons who tendered their shares of common stock of
Sunglass Hut International, Inc. (NASDAQ: "RAYS") to Shade Acquisition
Corp., pursuant to the Tender Offer dated March 5, 2001 by Luxottica
Group S.p.A. and Shade to Sunglass shareholders, in exchange for $11.50
net cash per share.

Excluded from the Class are the named Defendants and James N. Hauslein,
who is the Chairman of the Board of Sunglass.  The Complaint names
Luxottica and Shade as Defendants. Shade is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Luxottica.

The Complaint charges Defendants with violations of Section 14(d) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that pursuant to the Tender Offer and as
an integral part thereof, Defendants offered and paid greater
consideration to Hauslein than to other tendering Sunglass
shareholders, as an inducement to Hauslein to support the Tender Offer
and to tender his approximately 1.7 million Sunglass shares to Shade.

Plaintiff alleges that the additional consideration to Hauslein, which
was never offered nor paid to other Sunglass shareholders, was in the
form of a lucrative Consulting Agreement entered into between Hauslein
and Luxottica, under which Luxottica allegedly agreed to pay Hauslein
$15 million over a five-year period.

For more information, contact: James W. Johnson, Esq. (E-mail:
johnsoj@glrs.com) David J. Goldsmith, Esq. (E-mail: goldsmd@glrs.com)
GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, New
York 10017-5563 212/907-0700 or Burton H. Finkelstein, Esq. Conor R.
Crowley, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN 1055 Thomas Jefferson
Street, N.W., Suite 601 Washington, D.C. 20007 202/337-8000


MAX INTERNET: Consolidated Securities Suit Filed In N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
On various dates between August 1, 2000 and September 14, 2000, MAX
Internet Communications, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors, were named as defendants in lawsuits which were filed in the
U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.

In these purported class action lawsuits, plaintiffs allege that they
and other similarly situated investors purchased common stock of the
company at artificially inflated prices due to false and misleading
disclosures by the company concerning its sales revenue for the
quarterly financial reporting periods ending September 30, 1999 and
December 31, 1999.

Plaintiffs allege that the company's false and misleading disclosures
violated Sections 10(b) of 20(a), as well as other sections, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs seek to represent persons or entities who purchased the
company's common stock between November 15, 1999 and May 12, 2000.
On the latter date, the company announced that it was restating
earnings for the two prior quarters due in part to the booking of sales
in reliance upon documentation that was later found to be falsified.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, together with
prejudgment interest, attorney fees and other costs of suit. These
lawsuits were consolidated by court order on October 25, 2000.

Upon selection of lead plaintiffs and appointment of counsel to
represent the purported class, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed in May 2001.

The company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.


MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Suits Filed Against Subsidiaries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain plaintiffs have filed or threatened separate class action
complaints against cable systems of Mediacom Communications Corporation
across the United States alleging that the systems' delinquency fee
constitutes an invalid liquidated damage provision, a breach of
contract and violates local consumer protection statutes.

Plaintiffs seek recovery of all late fees paid to the subject systems
as a class purporting to consist of all subscribers who were assessed
such fees during the applicable limitation period, plus attorney fees
and costs.

In December 2000, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court with
respect to certain late fee class action complaints, which involves
certain subscribers of Georgia Mediacom Systems, Southern Illinois
Mediacom Systems, Iowa Mediacom Systems, and Missouri Mediacom Systems.

Certain other plaintiff suits, involving the above cable systems,
remain unresolved.

The December 2000 and any future settlements are not expected to have a
material impact on the financial condition or excess of revenues over
direct expenses of the four companies.

  
NCI BUILDING: Too Early To Gauge Effect Of Pending Shareholders Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in April 2001, several class action lawsuits were filed
against NCI Building Systems, Inc. and certain of its present officers
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The plaintiffs in the actions purport to represent purchasers of common
stock of the Company during various periods ranging from August 25,
1999 through April 12, 2001.

The complaints assert various claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intends to
defend them vigorously.

"The lawsuits are at a very early stage. Consequently, it is not
possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any
liability or to estimate the damages, or the range of damages, if
any, that the Company might incur in connection with such actions, or
whether an adverse outcome could have a material adverse impact on the
business, consolidated financial condition or results of operations of
the Company," said the Company in a statement.


NORTHEAST UTILITIES: Settlement Hearing Scheduled July 13
---------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman announced last week that a hearing will be held on July
13, 2001, before the Honorable Denny Chin, United States District Court
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, to
consider and determine:

     (i) whether a proposed settlement between Plaintiffs and certain
         defendants should be approved as fair, just, reasonable, and
         adequate;

    (ii) whether judgment should be entered finally approving the
         settlement, dismissing Count I of the litigation on the merits
         and with prejudice; and

   (iii) whether the application of counsel for Plaintiffs and the
         Class for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
         expenses and costs should be granted.

In consideration of the settlement of Count I of the litigation and the
claims released in such settlement, Defendants have disseminated a
supplemental proxy containing the disclosures that Plaintiffs contended
should have been included in the Initial Proxy and mailed directly to
shareholders of Northeast Utilities and Consolidated Edison, Inc. in
advance of the scheduled shareholder votes and meetings.

It is Plaintiffs' contention that the information disseminated in the
supplemental proxy was vital in assisting shareholders with casting
their vote on the proposed merger. Plaintiffs' counsel assisted in the
drafting of the supplemental proxy and agreed that it satisfied all of
their claims as contained in Count I of the Federal Complaint.

The proposed settlement is described more fully in a printed Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlement and of Settlement Hearing, which has
been mailed to all current Northeast shareholders and is available at
www.wyca.com.

For more details, contact: WEISS & YOURMAN, Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. or
David C. Katz, Esq. by mail: 551 Fifth Avenue Suite 1600 New York, New
York 10176 or by phone: (888) 593-4771 (toll-free) (212) 682-3025


PARACELSUS HEALTHCARE: Attempts To Settle Subsidiary Suits Fail
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Paracelsus Healthcare Corporation is a defendant in two
lawsuits alleging certain violations of Federal and North Dakota wage
and hour laws for the period 1994 through 1998 at the Fargo, North
Dakota hospital.

The actions currently pending are Sister Colette Werlinger, et al., vs.
Champion Healthcare Corporation, et al., Civ. NO. 97-2466 (District
Court, County of Cass, State of North Dakota) and Sister Juliana
Wisnewski, et al., vs. Champion Healthcare Corporation, et al., Civil
No. A3-96-72 in the United States District Court for the District of
North Dakota, Southeastern Division, on appeal as Shelly Reimer, et al.
vs. Champion Healthcare Corporation, et al., Case No. 00-2413 in the
United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The federal case was certified as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action in 1999, and the state case was granted class action status in
1998.

In January 2000, the federal court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment for all but one of the federal claims. The federal
issue not dismissed involved a computation error on the part
of the Company that had been voluntarily corrected.

Related liquidated damages were subsequently settled with the payment
of an immaterial amount. The parties have appealed the federal trail
court's summary judgment rulings to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In November 2000, the state court issued a ruling that increased the
number of individuals covered under the class action and the scope
of the potential damages to which the Company might be subject in the
event of an adverse jury verdict.

Attempts to settle this matter have been unsuccessful to date, although
discussions are ongoing. In the fourth quarter of 2000, the Company
recorded an unusual charge of $2.7 million to accrue for its estimated
liability with respect to this matter. The Company has also incurred an
additional $655,000 in legal fees related to this matter.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settles Securities Lawsuit For $49 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE: PG) announced last week it has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action
litigation filed against it in connection with the company's March 2000
earnings announcement.

Under the agreement, the company will pay $49 million in cash. The
settlement is subject to confirmatory discovery, final documentation
and court approval. Details regarding the settlement will be
communicated to potential class members prior to final court approval.

"In the end, this was a business decision," said P&G president and CEO
A. G. Lafley. "The settlement in no way changes our belief that we have
always complied fully with our obligations under the securities laws.
Nonetheless, we are pleased to put the matter behind us and eliminate
this distraction from our single-minded focus on restoring the
company's long-term growth."

The company confirmed it remains comfortable with the range of
analysts' estimates for core earnings-per-share growth for the quarter.
This includes the estimated impact of the securities litigation
settlement on core earnings.

Procter & Gamble markets approximately 300 brands to nearly five
billion consumers in over 140 countries. These brands include Tide(R),
Ariel(R), Crest(R), Pantene Pro-V(R), Always(R), Whisper(R),
Pringles(R), Pampers(R), Olay(R), Iams(R) and Vicks(R).

Based in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, P&G has on- the-ground operations in
over 70 countries.

For more information, contact: Linda Ulrey, 513-983-8975, or Martha
Depenbrock, 513-983-5366, both of the Procter & Gamble Company  


REDDI BRAKE: Settlement Agreement Remains Pending After Three Years
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reddi Brake Supply Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement
agreement it forged with the plaintiffs in a 1997 class suit is still
pending.

Both parties in the McCormick, et al., v. Reddi Brake Supply Corp., et
al., LASC Case No BC 180840 entered a stipulation of settlement on May
21, 1999 .

The Stipulation of Settlement provides that the Plaintiffs will
release the Company from a $20 million judgment if the Company
and individual defendants assign any and all rights for insurance
coverage to the Plaintiffs.

On November 6, 1997, the above action was filed in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court as a class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who bought common stock of Reddi Brake Supply Corporation
prior to March 23, 1996 and/or who bought or sold such stock thereafter
until August 13, 1996.  

The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty
by officers and directors and conspiracy to manipulate the price
of the common stock of the Company and concealment thereof.


REPUBLIC OF POLAND: Jewish Americans File Restitution Claims In NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
More than ten years after the end of communism in Central Europe,
Poland and the Czech Republic are still trying to work out systems for
resolving claims for restitution of property seized during and after
the Second World War.  

The Czech government, for example, continues a dispute with the Roman
Catholic Church, which has been trying to retrieve over 770 square
miles of land.

The new government of Czechoslovakia passed laws of restitution, in
1990 and 1991, after the end of communism.  These laws are, however, of
limited scope: Jews who lost land or other property after the 1938
Nazi invasion are excluded, as are the 3 million Sudeten Germans, many
of whom cheered the 1938 Nazi invasion and whose assets were
confiscated under a series of decrees even if they had not collaborated
with the Nazis.

In Poland, there are no laws governing return of private property.
Title to many buildings in Warsaw is unclear; for example, a Polish
family has claimed ownership of the land on which sits the American
embassy.   

As a result of the government's failure to provide a system of
restitution, many Poles have taken their claims to court both in Poland
and America.  

A National Coalition of Organizations for Restitution may be planning
to bring some 40,000 cases to Polish courts.  Jewish claimants have
filed a class action suit in New York against the Polish government and
are lobbying President Bush to bring up this topic with Polish
President Alexander Kwasniewski at their scheduled meeting in the near
future.

Outstanding restitution claims are a barrier to economic development in
both these countries because foreigners are cautious about investing in
property whose ownership is uncertain.

Czech laws do not promise early resolution of the restitution problem:  
The government has set tight deadlines for the claims; without
liberalization of the deadlines, many Czechs and non-Czechs will be
left out of the present process.  

The Polish restitution problem is even more complex.  For example, a
Polish restitution bill, which was vetoed by the Polish president,
provided that successful claimants be compensated for one-half the
property's present value.  Now many claimants are asking for 100%
compensation.


SPIEKER PROPERTIES: Shareholder Files Suit Enjoining Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, by an
alleged stockholder of Spieker Properties, Inc.

This complaint names as defendants Spieker and each member of its
board of directors and principally alleges that the directors breached
duties assuredly owed to Spieker's stockholders in connection with
entering into the merger agreement with Equity Office Properties Trust.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek an injunction (1) against the
defendants' agreement to the termination fee provisions of the merger
agreement and (2) requiring an unspecified "fair and objective process
to sell the company."

Spieker intends to continue vigorously defending the lawsuit, said the
Company in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


UNO RESTAURANT: To Mount Strong Defense Against DE Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 25, 2000, Bruce Cox filed a class action complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for New Castle County
against Uno Restaurant Corporation, Aaron D. Spencer and each of the
current directors of Uno.

The complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the plaintiff because Spencer and certain members of senior
management of Uno timed a proposed acquisition of the outstanding
shares of Uno in order to freeze out Uno's public stockholders and to
capture for themselves Uno's future potential without paying an
adequate or fair price to Uno's public stockholders.

The plaintiff seeks to have the action maintained as a class action, to
have the defendants enjoined from proceeding with or closing the
proposed transaction and to recover unspecified costs of the action.

The class is alleged to include all public shareholders of Uno,
excluding the defendants and their affiliates.

Uno has filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of ripeness and intends
to defend vigorously against the complaint.


                              *********

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.  Enid Sterling, Larri-Nil 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  * * *