CAR_Public/990823.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, August 23, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 141

                              Headlines

ARM FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit In Kentucky
ARM FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Expanded Securities Suit In Kent.
AUTO INSURANCE: 3 Insurers Sued Over Medical And Lost Wages Payment
AUTO INSURANCE: Nationwide Insurers Sued In Florida Over Repairs Parts
BRUNO'S INC.: Noteholder Class Action Takes on KKR in Alabama

CAMBIOR INC.: Vows To Contest Suit Over Dam Failure At Omai Gold Mine
CHICAGO CITY: Ap. Ct. Affirms Dismissal Of Suit Over Pension Violations
DATAWORKS CORP.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In California
DIGI INT'L: Discovery Proceeds For Securities Suit Filed In Louisiana
DIGI INT'L: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit In Minnesota

E TRADE: Will Defend Suit In CA Over Deceptive And Unfair Practices
FEDEX: Flying Tiger Partially Settles For EPA Suit; Issues Outstanding
FEDEX: Vows Defense For Suits In Alabama And N.Y. Over Excise Tax
FEN-PHEN: AHP says Calif. Ct. Rejects Class For Medical Check-Up
FOSTER PEPPER: Cleared Of Bond Deals Possibly Related To Tax Violations

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Nazi Documents Reveal Ford's Links To Auschwitz
HONDA: Sued In Columbus Over Employees Racism At Ohio Plants
MICRION CORP.: Shapiro Haber Announces Securities Suit In Massachusetts
MOTORCAR PARTS: Gold Bennett Files Securities Suit In Calif.
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Milberg Unsuccessful in Ousting Weiss & Yourman

PEGASYSTEMS INC.: Vows Defense For Securities Suit In Massachusetts
ROCHE: Former Top Executive Pleads Guilty To Vitamin Price Fixing
ST. JOHN'S: Military School Sued Over Anti-Semitism And Abuse Of Cadets
THOMSON CONSUMER: Settles Suit In Indiana Over Age Bias At Severance
TOBACCO LITIGATION: AIF Of Florida Files Amicus Curiae Brief In Miami

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ap. Ct. Oks Delivery Of CA's Share Of Settlement
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Next Phase Of Florida Suit Can Be Delayed
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ontario Suit To Block BAT Bid For Canada's Imasco
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Appeals Against Aussi Class Action

                             *********

ARM FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit In Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed on August 18,
1999, in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of ARM Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE: ARM)
between October 27, 1998 and August 3, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges ARM and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges
that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operations and the value and quality
of the Company's investment portfolio. Because of the issuance of a series
of false and misleading statements the price of ARM common stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Prior to the disclosure of
the adverse facts described above certain insiders sold thousands of
shares ARM common stock to the unsuspecting investing public at
artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Milberg Weiss and Arnzen,
Parry & Wentz, P.S.C., among others. Contact, at Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach ("Milberg Weiss"), Steven G. Schulman or Samuel Rudman at
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, New York 10119-0165, by
telephone 1-800-320-5081 or via e-mail: endfraud@mwbhlny.com or visit
website http://www.milberg.comTICKERS: NYSE:ARM


ARM FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Expanded Securities Suit In Kent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it isfiling a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky on behalf of an expanded class of investors
consisting of all persons who purchased common stock issued by ARM
Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE: ARM) at artificially inflated prices during
the period between October 27, 1998 and August 3, 1999 and who were
damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges that certain ARM officers and directors violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among
other things, misrepresenting and/or omitting material information about
ARM's results of operations and financial condition. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false and misleading
press releases and financial statements during the Class Period that,
among other things, failed to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's financial condition and results of operations.

In particular, the complaint alleges that: (i) the Company lacked
sufficient surrender protection on its institutional business and related
portfolios given the recent rise in interest rates; (ii) there was a huge
mismatch between assets and liabilities on its balance sheets that created
a potentially dangerous unrealized loss that could only be alleviated by
transferring over $ 3.5 billion in institutional liabilities and matched
assets to the liabilities' guarantor; and (iii) that the Company's
statements concerning its financial security were false given the actual
value of its portfolio and that millions of its assets were impaired.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and material
omissions, the price of ARM's stock was artificially inflated during the
Class Period, such that persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock during the Class Period were damaged by overpaying for the stock. On
July 29, 1999, the Company announced that it would sustain at least $ 181
million in pre-tax charges relating to its bond portfolio and that,
despite earlier statements to the contrary, the Company was in such severe
financial disarray that it would have to transfer nearly $ 3.5 billion of
its institutional assets and related liabilities to the liabilities'
guarantor.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP (www.whafh.com). If you are a member of the class described
above, you may, not later than sixty days from today move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to serve
as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.
Contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor
Isquith, Esq., Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq., Shane T. Rowley, Esq., or
Michael Miske) via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit website
http://www.whafh.comTICKERS: NYSE:ARM


AUTO INSURANCE: 3 Insurers Sued Over Medical And Lost Wages Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Three major insurance companies were sued for $ 100 million each by
customers who accused them of failing to fully pay for medical expenses
and lost wages after automobile accidents.

Lawyers for the seven people who filed the lawsuits said they expected
many other plaintiffs to join the Maryland lawsuits naming Allstate
Insurance, Geico, and State Farm Mutual Insurance.

"These people have paid premiums expecting that in the event of an
accident that their medical bills would be paid," said Joseph Cammarata,
an attorney representing individuals in the class-action suits filed in
Prince George's County Circuit Court.

The lawsuits allege that the companies use computer programs, medical
record reviewers, and doctors to shortchange customers who file personal
injury protection claims following the crashes.

"What is happening is that they are 'nickeling-and-diming policyholders on
a systematic basis in order to keep costs down," said Cammarata, who is
handling the cases with attorney Ira Sherman.

Representatives for Geico and Allstate said they would not comment until
company attorneys review the complaints, but a State Farm spokesman
defended the practice of reviewing claims to determine appropriate
charges. "It helps to keep the costs of insurance down for our customers,"
said Charles Ingram.

Each lawsuit seeks $ 100 million in punitive and compensatory damages. The
lawyers said they expect "thousands if not hundreds of thousands" of
people to become parties.

The American Insurance Association contends that preventing fraudulent
treatment and overbilling is in consumers best interests. "It means that
ratepayers are not being stuck with huge bills," said David Snyder,
assistant general counsel.

Records filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicate
authorities in five states are pursuing lawsuits against Allstate over
company mailers suggesting that those involved in accidents with its
policyholders can settle their cases without legal representation.
(The Record (Bergen County, NJ) 8-19-1999)


AUTO INSURANCE: Nationwide Insurers Sued In Florida Over Repairs Parts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, Fla., class action
lawsuits were filed against four national automobile insurance companies.
The insurance companies are Allstate Insurance Company, Metropolitan
Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive Insurance Companies, and GEICO.

Sean Domnick and Jack Scarola from the law firm of Searcy Denney Scarola
Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., in West Palm Beach, and the Law Offices of
Jeffrey Orseck in Ft. Lauderdale, have jointly filed the nationwide class
action lawsuits.

The lawsuits allege that the car insurers used inferior or imitation parts
when policy holders had to make repairs to their damaged cars. Such
practices by the named car insurers of not using factory-authorized or
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts is a breach of contract with
the policy holders.

The suits also allege that failure to use factory-authorized or OEM parts
by the insurers, can cause serious injury to drivers and passengers,
devaluates the worth of the car, and in many cases, may void the
automobile's manufacturer's warranty.

`This is a serious and widespread practice among car insurers who
blatantly choose to negate their obligation of restoring cars to their
pre-loss condition,` said attorney Sean Domnick. `This failure of the
automobile insurers to live up to their obligations puts our families and
children's lives at risk.`

Albert Butchin of Sunrise, Fla., filed suit against Allstate; Barbara
Stern of Pompano Beach filed suit against Metropolitan; Hope Rodney of
Hollywood filed suit against Progressive, and Alizah Aharonoff of Ft.
Lauderdale filed suit against Progressive and GEICO.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states including Ohio,
Washington, Illinois, Arizona and Kentucky.


BRUNO'S INC.: Noteholder Class Action Takes on KKR in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wyatt R. Haskell and James S. Snow, Jr., individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated holders of 10-1/2% Senior Subordinated Notes
issued by Bruno's, Inc., commenced a class action lawsuit in the Circuit
Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama against Kohlberg, Kravis,
Roberts & Co., L.P., various KKR affiliates, Henry R. Kravis, George R.
Roberts, other individuals affiliated with KKR, Ronald G. Bruno, William
J. Bolton, other Bruno's Directors and Officers, Chase Manhattan Bank,
Murray Devine & Co., and other entities.

Haskell steps through the details of the 1995 Leveraged Racapitalization
Transaction in which Bruno's used:

$ 475,000,000   borrowed from Chemical Bank under a Term Loan
                Agreement;
  10,000,000    drawn under a $125,000,000 Revolver arranged by
                Cemical Bank;
  400,000,000   from the sale of the 10-1/2% Senior Subordinated Notes;
  250,000,000   as an equity investment from KKR; and
  20,000,000    of the Company's cash on hand
---------------
$1,155,000,000

to pay out:

$ 880,100,000   to buy-back its stock at $12.50 per share;
  100,000,000   to redeem the 6.62% Series A Senior Notes;
  100,000,000   to redeem the 7.09% Series B Senior Notes;
  15,000,000    to KKR for advisory fees;
   2,351,990    to Robinson-Humphrey for its fees and expenses;
  10,226,058    to BT Securities for underwriting to 10.5% Notes; *
  14,370,616    to Chemical for arranging the Term Loan; and
   4,882,558    to Wachovia Bank for terminating a swap agreement
--------------
$1,126,931,222

The 1995 Leveraged Recapitalization Transaction turned Bruno's balance
sheet, reflecting $422,478,000 in shareholder equity a month earlier,
upsidedown to reflect a $281,343,000 shareholder deficit immediately
thereafter.

The 1995 Leveraged Recapitalization Transaction, Haskell concludes,
rendered Bruno's insolvent, stripped Bruno's of assets sufficient for it
to meet its debts and obligations as they matured and replaced 7% debt
with 10.5% (and higher) debt. The Recapitalization operated as a fraud on
Bruno's existing and future creditors, Haskell charges.

Each Defendant, by its participation in the Leveraged Recapitalization,
Haskell alleges, was reckless and knew or should have known the outcome
would be financial failure. KKR dominated and controlled Bruno's and
orchestrated the events that transpired. KKR's affiliates are jointly and
severally liable for KKR's misdeeds pursuant to Sections 10-8-51 through
10-8-56 of the Code of Alabama. Mr. Bruno received over $70,000,000 on
account of his stock holdings at the time. The officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties. Chemical was a reckless lender. Murray
Devine rendered a junk solvency opinion. The Leveraged Recapitalization
imposed such a heavy debt obligation on Bruno's that it could not meet its
debt service requirements and could no survive as a business entity,
Haskell asserts, and responsibility lands with these Defendants.

Haskell complains that the Leveraged Recapitalization did not give Bruno's
reasonably equivalent value for the money and assets it gave up, violative
of the Alabama Fraudulent Transfer Act, Sections 8-9A-1, et seq. of the
Code of Alabama.

Haskell asks the Alabama Court to certify an estimated 1,700 noteholders
as a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure,
and enter judgment for (i) compensatory damages, to be adduced in a jury
trial, suffered by noteholders against the Defendants, (ii) punitive
damages resulting from the Director Defendants' willful and reckless
breaches of their fiduciary duties, and (iii) imposition of a constructive
trust on all monies received by the Defendants.

Haskell is represented by J. Vernon Patrick, Jr., Esq., and Jeffrey V.
Havercroft, Esq., in Birmingham, Alabama. In Bruno's chapter 11 cases,
pending before the udge Robinson in Delaware, Haskell is represented by
Karen C. Bifferato, Esq., of Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP. Bruno's is
represented by Harvey R. Miller, Esq., of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in
New York. (Bruno's Bankruptcy News 21-Aug-1999)


CAMBIOR INC.: Vows To Contest Suit Over Dam Failure At Omai Gold Mine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambior Inc. confirms that, further to a filing in August 1998, Omai Gold
Mines Limited has been served with a "Representative Action" claiming
compensation for damages as a result of a tailings dam failure that
occurred at the Omai mine, in Guyana, in August 1995. Cambior and OMAI
view the Action as unfounded.

As a result of the incident in 1995, the Government of Guyana established
a Commission of Inquiry and related committees comprised of local and
international experts to investigate the tailings dam failure. The
Commission tabled its Report in January 1996 that included the following
findings: "We have come to the conclusion that at no time was the
contaminated water a serious threat to life. Nor was there any credible
evidence that the spill in any way posed a hazard to the health of the
Omai workers or the riverain residents."

OMAI received permission from the Government of Guyana to resume
commercial production at the Omai mine on February 4, 1996, and operations
have continued uninterrupted and have achieved 100 percent compliance with
all the effluent standards set by the Guyanese Government; standards
established for the protection of human health and aquatic life. These
standards also include all the environmental standards prevailing in the
United States and Quebec. Omai's compliance is being monitored by the
Guyanese Environmental Protection Agency through independent sampling and
assaying.

On March 26, 1997, Cambior was served with a Motion for Authorization
seeking authorization from the Superior Court of Quebec to institute a
class action against Cambior with a view to claiming damages in the amount
of Cdn $ 69,000,000. In a judgment rendered on August 14, 1998, the
Superior Court of Quebec granted Cambior's motion to dismiss the matter.
No appeal was filed within the required time frame. In August 1998, within
the three-year limitation period, a similar Representative Action was
filed in Guyana. OMAI has now been served with the Action claiming to
represent some 23,000 individuals in Guyana and seeking US $ 100 million
as compensation for damages. The Action remains open to challenge in
numerous respects, and Cambior and OMAI have instructed their attorneys to
contest it vigorously.

Cambior Inc. is an international diversified gold producer with
operations, development projects and exploration activities throughout the
Americas.


CHICAGO CITY: Ap. Ct. Affirms Dismissal Of Suit Over Pension Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed Cook County Chancery Judge John
K. Madden's dismissal of a suit that charged the City of Chicago with
violating the Illinois Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. The action
was brought by participants in the city's municipal employees' pension
funds for interest on money collected for those funds. Madden dismissed
their last pleading, a second amended complaint, pursuant to sections
2-615 and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Houlihan v. City of
Chicago, No. 95 CH 4443 (Jan. 10, 1997), affirmed, No. 1-97-1514, 1999
Ill.App. LEXIS 481 (June 30).

As summarized in the appellate opinion by 1st District Justice Robert
Chapman Buckley, the action involved five pension funds established for
municipal employees, including police officers, firefighters and park
employees. The funds are financed by a combination of employee
contributions deducted from salary, employer contributions by the city and
investment earnings on the contributions.

According to Buckley, when an employee contributes to one of those funds,
the city enters a credit to the employee's specific pension account in an
amount certified by the pension board as the city's contribution. The city
then levies a special property tax to finance its employer contributions
to each of the pension funds. The amount of the special levy varies for
each year and for each pension fund, but does not exceed employee
contributions multiplied by a fixed statutory multiplier. However, due to
the procedure for levying and collecting property taxes, the city actually
makes its annual employer contribution two years in arrears."

The second amended complaint sought interest for the delay in the city's
contribution. Patrick Houlihan, Bernard McKay, Arlene O'Connor, John
Pierce and Glenn R. Smith, participants in four of the city's five pension
funds, filed the suit as both a derivative and class action on behalf of
the participants in all five funds. They alleged that Chicago is obligated
to account for and pay over statutory interest on its employer
contributions for the period from the employee's contributions until the
city receives each particular year's tax levy for deposit into the fund's
accounts." They also charged that the city breached its fiduciary duty to
the pension funds and its contract with the funds, and they claimed
against the funds' trustees under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act,
5 ILCS 140/2(a).

Madden dismissed all counts of the second amended complaint. After
dismissing the FOIA in a separate ruling, he granted the city's motion to
dismiss the accounting, fiduciary duty and breach of contract counts. The
appeal focused on the dismissal of those latter counts.

Madden's dismissal order ruled that the Pension Code provides that the
sums to be contributed to the pension funds by the City of Chicago,
including interest, are to be taken solely from the tax levy." He stated
that the exhibits attached to the second amended complaint show that the
pension funds have requested and received from the city the maximum
contributions authorized by statute." Madden judged that the city was not
required to increase the property tax described in the statute beyond the
maximum amount of levy under the Pension Code."

Madden determined that the adoption of home rule in Illinois' 1970
Constitution did not invalidate the financing provisions of the statute,
though the Pension Code was enacted before 1970. Madden noted that the
home-rule doctrine does not render all state statutes enacted prior to
1970 invalid. State statutes remain valid absent a conflicting ordinance
or resolution adopted by a home-rule unit of local government. Plaintiffs
have not alleged that the city enacted any local legislation that
conflicts with and supersedes the financing provisions of the Pension
Code."

The city is not obligated," the judge observed to exercise home-rule
powers. The home-rule provision of the Illinois Constitution is
permissive, not obligatory. ... Furthermore, the city is not liable for an
injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing
to enforce any law' " because of the Local Governmental and Governmental
Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/2-103.

Finally, Madden concluded that the city did not breach any contract with
the plaintiffs. He observed that Article XIII, section 5, of the state
Constitution was intended to grant pension fund beneficiaries contract
rights in relation to their pensions where there was a threat that the
pensions actually earned by public employees would be diminished or
impaired."

In the present case, plaintiffs do not allege that the city's actions
jeopardize the funds available to pay pensions already earned by the
pension fund beneficiaries," he ruled.

The Appellate Court panel, which included Justices Morton Zwick and
Patrick J. Quinn, reviewed Madden's dismissal de novo. Buckley's opinion
first rejected the argument that the Pension Code required interest.

The plaintiffs had cited a provision stating: If it is not possible or
practicable for the city to make its contributions at the time that salary
deductions are made, the city shall make such contributions as soon as
possible thereafter, with interest thereon to the time it is made." 40
ILCS 5/5-168. Buckley noted, however, that it is essential to read the
statute as a whole, with all of its relevant provisions considered
together."

Read under that rule, he stated, the statute does not require the city to
pay interest if it has contributed the statutory maximum." Buckley wrote
that the Pension Code provides a system of calculating maximum tax levies
and capping employer contributions," and the plaintiffs' interpretation
would nullify" that system by requiring the city to increase the amount of
the tax levy ... to add funds in excess of the statutory requirement
solely because of the method by which the county collector collects
property taxes."

Buckley noted that amendments to the Pension Code provide that not all
sums of money contributed to the funds, including interest, have to come
from the special property tax levy," but the Pension Code still requires
that the city not exceed the maximum allowable tax levy."

The parties do not dispute that the city has contributed the full
statutory tax levy to each pension fund. As a result, the statute does not
require the city to pay interest if it has contributed the statutory
maximum," the justice concluded.

Buckley also rejected the contention that the city must exercise home-rule
powers available under the Illinois Constitution to pay interest. He
quoted Madden's ruling that the doctrine of home rule does not render all
state statutes enacted prior to 1970 invalid." The justice continued, The
Circuit Court concluded that since plaintiffs did not allege that the city
enacted any local legislation in conflict with the Pension Code, the
pre-1970 requirements of the Pension Code are valid. We agree. ...The City
does not have an obligation to exercise its home-rule powers to raise
additional monies when the city has already contributed the statutory
maximum to the pension funds."

Buckley rejected plaintiffs' breach of contract argument, too. He
acknowledged that Article XIII, section 5, of the Constitution establishes
that the participants in a state or local pension program are parties to
an enforceable contract that protects the right to receive benefits." It
does not, however, create a contractual basis for pension fund
participants to expect a particular level of funding." Buckley said he saw
no dispute that the city has contributed the maximum amount allowable to
the funds. As a result, under the Pension Code the city cannot contribute
additional money to the pension funds."

Buckley closed by agreeing that the city lacked case law to support its
argument that the Tort Immunity Act was a bar to the plaintiffs' case, but
he noted that claims against certain funds were susceptible to objections
based on standing. For the reasons in Buckley's opinion, the panel
affirmed the judgment of dismissal Madden entered.

A petition for rehearing the plaintiffs filed in the Appellate Court was
denied on Aug. 5. In Chancery By Stanley C. Nardoni Nardoni is an attorney
with Bell, Jones, Quinlisk & Palmer. He graduated from DePaul University
College of Law, where he served as an editor of the DePaul Law Review, and
is a former law clerk to Justice Daniel P. Ward of the Supreme Court of
Illinois. This monthly column focuses on decisions by the chancellors of
the Cook County Circuit Court. (Chicago Daily Law Bulletin 8-17-1999)


DATAWORKS CORP.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss announced that a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of DataWorks Corporation (Nasdaq:DWRX) publicly
traded securities during the period between October 31, 1997 and July 16,
1998.

The complaint charges DataWorks and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants artificially inflated
DataWorks stock to as high as $ 27 per share by falsifying and
manipulating DataWorks' reported net income for the 3rdQ and 4thQ 97 and
1stQ 98 and by making a series of false and misleading statements about
DataWorks' acquisition of and merger with Interactive Group, Inc. and the
demand for and sales of its Avante/InfoFlo product line, both in the U.S.
and in Europe.

During 2/98-6/98, while DataWorks' stock was artificially inflated due to
these alleged false statements, DataWorks' top insiders sold 437,616
shares of their DataWorks stock at between $ 18-1/2-$ 26-5/8 for $ 9.8
million in proceeds. In mid-7/98, DataWorks stock began to fall sharply as
information began to circulate that DataWorks was having problems and
would report worse than forecasted 2ndQ 98 results. After the close of
trading on 7/16/98, DataWorks admitted what had been rumored, that its
2ndQ 98 results would be well below expectations and that this serious
shortfall was due to problems with its Avante product line. DataWorks
stock fell immediately to $ 8-5/8 on huge volume of 2.4 million shares.

The plaintiff is represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
who has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may, no later than
60 days from today, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
Class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you
must meet certain legal requirements. Contact Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes
& Lerach, LLP William Lerach, 800/449-4900 wsl@mwbhl.com TICKERS:
NASDAQ:DWRX or via e-mail at wsl@mwbhl.com


DIGI INT'L: Discovery Proceeds For Securities Suit Filed In Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 1997, the Company and certain of its previous officers
also were named as defendants in a securities lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota by the Louisiana State
Employees Retirement System, which is captioned LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM V. DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC., GARY L. DEANER, ERVIN F.
KAMM, JR., GERALD WALL AND "JOHN DOE" AND "RICHARD ROE", DEFENDANTS (Civil
File No. 97-440, Master File No. 97-5 DWF/RLE). On June 3, 1997, the
Louisiana State Employees Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint.

The Louisiana Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and its previous
officers Ervin F. Kamm, Jr., Gerald A. Wall and Gary L. Deaner violated
federal securities laws and state common law by, among other things,
misrepresenting and/or omitting material information concerning the
Company's operations and financial results. The Louisiana Amended
Complaint seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $718,404.70 plus
interest against all defendants, jointly and severally, and an award of
attorneys' fees, disbursements and costs.

In a decision issued on May 22, 1998, the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint and the Louisiana
Amended Complaint. The Court dismissed without leave to replead all claims
asserted in both cases, except for certain federal securities law claims
based upon alleged misrepresentation and/or omissions relating to the
accounting treatment applied to the Company's AetherWorks investment. The
Court also limited the claims asserted in the Louisiana Amended Complaint
to the 11,000 shares of the Company's stock held subsequent to November
14, 1996, for which the Louisiana Amended Complaint claims damages of
$184,276.40. The claims in the two actions remain pending against the
Company and its former officers Ervin F. Kamm, Jr. and Gerald A. Wall.
Discovery in the actions is proceeding.

Because the lawsuits are in preliminary stages, the ultimate outcomes
cannot be determined at this time, and no potential assessment of their
effect, if any, on the Company's financial position, liquidity or future
operations can be made.


DIGI INT'L: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit In Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
Between January 3, 1997 and March 7, 1997, the Company and certain of its
previous officers were named as defendants in five putative securities
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers for its
common stock during the period January 25, 1996, through December 23,
1996. The five putative class actions were thereafter consolidated, and on
May 12, 1997, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in
the actions, which are captioned IN RE DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION (Master File No. 97-5 DWF/RLE).

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and its
previous officers Ervin F. Kamm, Jr., Gerald A. Wall and Gary L. Deaner
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
misrepresenting and/or omitting material information concerning the
Company's operations and financial results. The Consolidated Amended
Complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount plus
interest against all defendants, jointly and severally, and an award of
attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs.


E TRADE: Will Defend Suit In CA Over Deceptive And Unfair Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 21, 1997, a putative class action was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, by Larry R. Cooper on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated individuals. The action alleges,
among other things, that the Company's advertising, other communications
and business practices regarding the Company's commission rates and its
ability to timely execute and confirm transactions through its online
brokerage services were false and deceptive. The action seeks injunctive
relief enjoining the purported deceptive and unfair practices alleged in
the action and also seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
as well as attorney fees.

This proceeding is currently in the discovery phase and the Company is
unable to speculate as to its ultimate outcome. However, the Company
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend against
them rigorously. An unfavorable outcome in any matters which are not
covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even
if the ultimate outcomes are resolved in favor of the Company, the defense
of such litigation could entail considerable cost and the diversion of
efforts of management, either of which could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operation.

From time to time the Company has been threatened with, or named as a
defendant in, lawsuits and administrative claims. Compliance and trading
problems that are reported to the NASD or the SEC by dissatisfied
customers are investigated by the NASD or the SEC, and, if pursued by such
customers, may rise to the level of arbitration or disciplinary action.
One or more of such claims or disciplinary actions decided adversely
against the Company could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition and results of operations. The Company is
also subject to periodic regulatory audits and inspections.

The Company says that securities industry is subject to extensive
regulation under federal, state and applicable international laws and as a
result, the Company is required to comply with many complex laws and rules
and its ability to so comply is dependent in large part upon the
establishment and maintenance of a qualified compliance system. The
Company is aware of several instances of its non- compliance with
applicable regulations. In particular, in fiscal 1997, the Company failed
to comply with applicable advertising restrictions in one international
jurisdiction, and due to a clerical oversight, failed to timely renew its
registration as a broker-dealer in two states, Nebraska and Ohio. One of
the state jurisdictions, Ohio, as a condition of renewing the Company's
license as a broker-dealer in that jurisdiction, required the Company to
offer customers resident in that state the ability to rescind (for up to
30 days) certain securities transactions effected through the Company
during the period January 1, 1997 through April 15, 1997, the date the
Company's license was renewed. For fiscal 1997, the Company recorded a
one-time $4.3 million pre-tax charge against earnings in connection with
this matter.

The Company maintains insurance in such amounts and with such coverages,
deductibles and policy limits as management believes are reasonable and
prudent. The principal risks that the Company insures against are
comprehensive general liability, commercial property, hardware/software
damage, directors and officers, and errors and omissions liability. The
Company believes that such insurance coverages are adequate for the
purpose of its business.


FEDEX: Flying Tiger Partially Settles For EPA Suit; Issues Outstanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 1987, The Flying Tiger Line Inc., a company acquired by FedEx
in 1989, received a notice from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency identifying Flying Tigers as a potentially responsible party
("PRP") in connection with a "Superfund" site located in Monterey Park,
California.

The site is a 190-acre landfill which operated from 1948 through 1984. In
June 1985, the EPA began a remedial investigation of the site to identify
the extent of contamination. The EPA estimates that approximately 0.1% of
the waste disposed at the site is attributable to Flying Tigers. Flying
Tigers participated in a partial settlement relating to remedial actions
for management of contamination and site control. Partial consent decrees
were entered in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California in 1989 and 1992 which provided, in part, for payments of
$109,000 and $230,000, respectively, by Flying Tigers and FedEx to the
partial-settlement escrow account. All outstanding issues are not expected
to be resolved for several years. Due to several variables which are
beyond FedEx's control, it is impossible to accurately estimate FedEx's
potential share of the remaining costs, but based on Flying Tigers'
relatively insignificant contribution of waste to the site, FedEx believes
that its remaining liability will not be material.


FEDEX: Vows Defense For Suits In Alabama And N.Y. Over Excise Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are two separate class-action lawsuits against FedEx generally
alleging that FedEx has breached its contract with the plaintiffs in
transporting packages shipped by them. These lawsuits allege that FedEx
continued to collect a 6.25% federal excise tax on the transportation of
property shipped by air after the tax expired on December 31, 1995, until
it was reinstated in August 1996. The plaintiffs seek certification as a
class action, damages, an injunction to enjoin FedEx from continuing to
collect the excise tax referred to above, and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

One case was filed in Circuit Court of Greene County, Alabama. The other
case, which was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County,
and contained allegations and requests for relief substantially similar to
the Alabama case, was dismissed with prejudice on FedEx's motion on
October 7, 1997.

The Court found that there was no breach of contract and that the other
causes of action were preempted by federal law. The plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal. This case originally alleged that FedEx continued to
collect the excise tax on the transportation of property shipped by air
after the tax expired on December 31, 1996. The New York complaint was
later amended to cover the first expiration period of the tax (December
31, 1995 through August 27, 1996) covered in the original Alabama
complaint. The dismissal was affirmed by the appellate court on March 2,
1999. The plaintiffs are now seeking permission to appeal to the next
appellate level.

The air transportation excise tax expired on December 31, 1995, was
reenacted by Congress effective August 27, 1996, and expired again on
December 31, 1996. The excise tax was then reenacted by Congress effective
March 7, 1997. The expiration of the tax relieved FedEx of its obligation
to pay the tax during the periods of expiration. The Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997, signed by President Clinton in August 1997, extended the tax for
ten years through September 30, 2007.

FedEx intends to vigorously defend itself in this case. No amount has been
reserved for this contingency.


FEN-PHEN: AHP says Calif. Ct. Rejects Class For Medical Check-Up
---------------------------------------------------------------- American
Home Products Corp said California Superior Court judge Daniel Solis Pratt
has refused to certify a class action by plaintiffs who used diet drug
Redux and were seeking medical monitoring.

AHP said the suit had sought a court-supervised program, to be funded by
the company, to detect heart valve damage or primary pulmonary
hypertension allegedly due to the use of the diet drug. The company said
the judge found that class certification was "improper" because California
law requires the existence of an ascertainable class and a well-defined
community of interest among the class members.

The judge said that given the different amounts of drug taken and
different periods of consumption, there were "increasingly disparate
issues relating to risk and damages". (AFX News 8-20-1999)


FOSTER PEPPER: Cleared Of Bond Deals Possibly Related To Tax Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle-based law firm Foster Pepper & Shefelman did not work any of the
bond deals for the state that are currently under review for possible
violations of the federal tax rules, state Treasurer Michael Murphy
confirmed.

Foster Pepper worked on state bonds in 1993 and 1994, the years that the
two general obligation bond issues in question were sold, but the firm
only participated on a GO refunding deal during that time. The firm last
week had said it was unsure if it had worked on the deals in question.

Murphy revealed three weeks ago that Washington may have violated portions
of the private-loan financing test of the tax code when it sold $800
million of GO bonds through three issues in 1993 and 1994.

The state lent more than is allowed under federal law to a private housing
nonprofit from the proceeds. Federal tax law dictates that no more than 5%
or $5 million of proceeds from a tax-exempt bond sale, whichever is
smaller, be loaned out for private use. The Internal Revenue Service has
contacted the state about the issue.

According to Securities Data Co., the only two law firms that worked on
general obligation bonds for the state during the time were Lane Powell
Spears Lubersky and Riddell, Williams, Bullitt & Walkinshaw.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Nazi Documents Reveal Ford's Links To Auschwitz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newly released Nazi documents show the Ford Motor Company was one of 500
firms which had links with Auschwitz, Polish officials said yesterday,
delivering a setback to Ford's attempts to extricate itself from
allegations that it profited from wartime slave labour. Although it was
unclear how deep or extensive Ford's contacts with the camp administration
were, the documents are likely to provide ammunition for former slave
labourers who are suing the company in a US court over claims that they
were forced to work in the Cologne plant run by Ford's German subsidiary.

The list of industries linked to Auschwitz was among Nazi-era documents
recently handed over by Moscow, where the camp archive has been kept since
the end of the war.

A total of 1.1m people, 90% of them Jews, are thought to have died in the
camp in the southern Polish town of Oswiecim.

The papers discovered include construction plans, orders for raw materials
and reports. They also name the German industrial giants Krupp, Siemens
and IG Farben.

Jacek Turczynski, the head of a foundation representing Nazi-era slave
labourers, said: 'The list includes Ford, but we do not have any other
details.' He added that some of the companies listed used slave labour,
while others only inquired about the possibility of using Auschwitz
inmates as workers. It has not emerged how far each of the named companies
was implicated. 'It could have been just correspondence, they could have
supplied some equipment,' Barbara Jarosz, the head of the Auschwitz
museum, said.

Ford has previously acknowledged that its German subsidiary, Ford Werke
AG, used slave labour at its Cologne plant, and is fighting a class action
lawsuit by for mer labourers in a New Jersey court.

The car firm's lawyers argue that the Michigan-based parent company lost
control of its German operations when the war broke out and the Cologne
plant was seized as 'enemy property'.

Jim Vella, Ford's global news director, issued a statement saying:
'Whatever occurred at the Cologne plant during world war two was and is
the responsibility of the German government, as successor to the Nazi
regime. 'Wartime reparations claims historically have been resolved by
government-to -government agreements and that is how this matter should be
resolved, too.'

Ford has also argued that the statute of limitations on the victims'
claims had expired.

But Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor representing the
slave labourers and their families, said: 'Time can never shield a war
criminal, either criminally or civilly.'

One of the former slave labourers suing Ford is Elsa Iwanowa, 74, who has
testified that she was abducted as a teenager along with 2,000 other
children from a Russian village and forced to build military vehicles at
the Nazi-run Ford plant.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind against a US company, was inspired by
the success of Nazi victims in securing reparations from Swiss banks which
had profited from Nazi wartime deposits.

It claims Ford's German plant 'became an eager, aggressive and successful
bidder for forced labourers', and al leges that senior Ford executives
knew that thousands of workers were being abused.

The US district judge in the case, Joseph Greenaway, is due to rule next
month on Ford's motion to dismiss the case.

The firm has called the former US secretary of state Warren Christopher as
a witness to testify that former US administrations have upheld the
principle that governments should decide war reparations rather than the
courts.

However, if the newly unearthed documents show that Ford Werke AG was
deeply involved in the operations of the death camp, a dismissal is less
likely.

Ms Jarosz said archivists were still reviewing the Auschwitz documents to
establish the names of slave labourers used by some of the companies
involved.

Victims' organisations say there are detailed files with the names of
100,000 workers still in the Moscow archives, which have yet to be
released. (The Guardian (London) 8-20-1999)


HONDA: Sued In Columbus Over Employees Racism At Ohio Plants
------------------------------------------------------------
Honda of America Manufacturing is accused of race discriminationin a
lawsuit filed in federal district court in Columbus. The lawsuit names
employees Mark Bacon of Springfield and Herbert Winston, whose hometown
was unavailable. It seeks class action status for all black employees at
Honda's Marysville, East Liberty and Anna plants and challenges the
company's "long-standing pattern and practice of systematically excluding
blacks from employment opportunities ... and creating a hostile work
environment for black employees ...", according to a news release from the
plaintiff's Cincinnati law firm, Waite, Schneider, Bayless and Chesley.

The same law firm is representing four women who in July filed a sex
discrimination lawsuit against Honda in U.S. District Court in Dayton. The
women are seeking class action status.

Honda of America spokesman Roger Lambert said he had not seen the latest
lawsuit and could not comment on its contents. But he denied the company
discriminates. "I addition to my saying we don't tolerate discrimination
of any kind, we also feel we will vigorously defend any allegations to the
contrary," Lambert said.

He said he did not know the percentage of blacks in the Honda work force
or management, but said the work force reflects the demographics of the
company's defined hiring area, which does not include Dayton, but does
include Columbus.

Steinberg said 6.6 percent of the company's work force is black, a
decrease from 1991 when more than 7 percent of employees were black. He
said 3 percent of Honda managers are black and they are grouped in the
lowest management levels.

The lawsuit accuses Honda of operating a "buddy system", in which white
and Japanese managers use favoratism and prevent blacks from moving up in
the company. The lawsuit also charges the company with retaliating against
black employees who complain about discrimination and says racial slurs
are tolerated in the workplace.

The lawsuit asks that the company be forced to halt its discriminatory
practices and promote qualified black employees.

In 1988 Honda agreed to pay $6 million in back pay and seniority
adjustments to 377 black and female employees as part of an agreement
between the automaker and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The
company also agreed to expand its defined hiring area to include Columbus
and Lima, adding more black workers to the potential work force. The
settlement ended a four year EEOC investigation of discrimination
complaints.

In a 1987 settlement with the EEOC Honda agreed to pay $461,610 in back
pay and seniority adjustments to resolve age discrimination complaints.


MICRION CORP.: Shapiro Haber Announces Securities Suit In Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice to Micrion Shareholders of Certification of Class Action Announced
by Shapiro Haber Urmy LLP

The following is being issued by Shapiro Haber Urmy LLP: UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN RE MICRION CORP.
Civil Action SECURITIES LITIGATION   No. 96-11596-REK CONSOLIDATED

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF MICRION
    CORPORATION DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 26, 1996, THROUGH JUNE 24,
    1996, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD") AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
    "CLASS").

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court of the District
of Massachusetts dated March 10, 1998, the above captioned action has been
certified to proceed as a class action on behalf of:

All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Micrion
Corporation during the period from April 26, 1996 through June 24, 1996,
inclusive (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby (the "Class").
Excluded from the Class are the defendants, any affiliates, officers or
directors of Micrion, and any members of the immediate families of the
individual defendants.

THIS NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO YOU TO INFORM YOU OF THE PENDENCY OF THE
ACTION, THE COURT'S DECISION TO CERTIFY THE LAWSUIT TO PROCEED AS A CLASS
ACTION AND YOUR RIGHT TO ELECT TO OPT-OUT OF THE CLASS. THIS NOTICE SETS
FORTH A SUMMARY OF THE ACTION AND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS A MEMBER
OF THE CERTIFIED CLASS. PLEASE READ THE NOTICE CAREFULLY AS YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE LAWSUIT.

THIS NOTICE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE
COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE MERITS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES.
THIS NOTICE IS PROVIDED MERELY TO ADVISE YOU OF THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION
AND THE RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO IT.

                    Description Of The Litigation

This is a class action brought in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts ("the Action"). The plaintiffs are Joshua
Geffon, Edward R. Jaslow, Irving Berger and Richard Anthony Philippon who
represent a class of persons and entities who purchased shares of Micrion
stock. The defendants in the action are Micrion Corporation; Nicholas P.
Economou, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director; David Hunter,
Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and
Director, and Robert K. McMenamin, Vice President of Sales. In general,
the Consolidated Complaint alleges that Micrion issued during the Class
Period a series of false and misleading statements concerning a contract
which it had for the purchase of its equipment for a new application,
including that it had booked an order in excess of $60 million and had a
backlog of $72.9 million.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the price of Micrion stock was
artificially inflated as a result of the false and misleading statemerits
issued by Micrion. The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 13, 1997, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim which
plaintiffs opposed. On April 30, 1997, the Court denied defendants' motion
to dismiss. Subsequent to the Court's Order denying defendants' motion to
dismiss, the parties commenced conducting discovery. Discovery was
completed on March 20, 1998. On June 1, 1998, defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment which plaintiffs opposed. On September 24, 1998, the
Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying without prejudice defendants'
motion for summary judgment on the record then before it.

                     Defendants Deny Any Liability

The defendants expressly deny all of the allegations of wrongdoing
asserted in the action and deny any liability whatsoever to any members of
the Class. By directing that this Notice be given, the Court is not
suggesting that the claims being asserted by the plaintiffs are
meritorious. The merits of plaintiffs' claims will be determined in the
due course of the proceedings. This Notice is provided only so that you
may decide what steps, if any, to take in relation to the pendency of this
Action.

                   Rights And Options Of Class Members

If you are a member of the Class, as defined above, you should understand
and carefully consider the following statements and choices:

You will be a member of the Class unless you request to be excluded. The
final judgment entered in this case will include, and will be binding
upon, all members of the Class who do not request exclusion, whether or
not the judgment is favorable to plaintiffs. YOU NEED NOT DO ANYTHING NOW
TO PARTICIPATE AS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS AND TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL
RECOVERY OBTAINED IN THIS ACTION.

If you do not wish to be included as a member of the Class in this Action,
you may be excluded if you mail by first class mail a written request for
exclusion postmarked no later than October 4, 1999, addressed to: Shapiro
Haber Urmy LLP P.O. Box 4539 Boston, MA 02209

Your request for exclusion must set forth: (a) your name, address and
telephone number; (b) the number of shares and dates of each purchase and
sale of Micrion common stock during the Class Period; (c) the name(s) in
which such Micrion stock was registered and; (d) a signed statement that
"the undersigned hereby requests to be excluded from the Class." If your
exclusion request is timely received: (a) you will be excluded from the
Class; (b) you will not be allowed to share in a recovery, if any, in this
Action; and (c) you will not be precluded by this Action from prosecuting
your own claim.

If you do not request exclusion from the Class, you may enter an
appearance in the Action through counsel of your own choice, but you have
no obligation to do so. If you do enter an appearance through counsel, you
will bear the cost of such counsel's fees.

All members of the Class who do not request exclusion therefrom and do not
enter an appearance through counsel of their own choice will be
represented by plaintiffs' counsel. Counsel for the plaintiffs and the
Class are:

Shapiro Haber Urmy LLP
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
75 State Street One Pennsylvania Plaza Boston, MA 02109 New York
New York 10119
(617) 439-3939
(212) 594-5300
fax: (617) 439-0134
fax: (212) 868-1229
e-mail: shu@shulaw.com
e-mail: rezek@hlc.com

Jay S. Cohen, Esq. Law Offices of Jay S. Cohen
Gwynedd Office Park 768
North Bethlehem Pike Lower Gwynedd, PA 19002
(215) 619-0200  fax: (215) 619-0203

                        Attorneys' Fees And Expenses

The attorneys' fees for plaintiffs and the Class are contingent on
success. The expenses that are incurred in the prosecution of the Action
for plaintiffs and the Class are being advanced by the attorneys for the
Class. If you remain a member of the Class, you will have no personal
liability for attorneys' fees and expenses in the event plaintiffs do not
prevail. If plaintiffs and the Class do prevail, recovery for the benefit
of the Class will be first subject to deductions for the expenses of
prosecuting the litigation and attorneys' fees as may be allowed by the
Court.

                            Change Of Address

If you move or change your address, you should immediately provide your
current address by fax or letter to:

Micrion Corp. Securities Litigation c/o David Berdon & Co. LLP, Notice
Administrator P.O. Box 4171 Grand Central Station New York, NY 10163
Telephone: 800-766-3330 Fax: 212-702-0138

If the Notice Administrator does not have your correct address, you might
not receive notice of important developments in this Class Action lawsuit,
and you might not receive your share of any money recovered by the Class.

                          Examination Of Papers

All of the above descriptions of allegations, responses and other matters
in this Class Action, are only summaries and do not include all important
matters relating to the Action. The pleadings and other papers filed in
this Action are public records and are available for inspection during
regular business hours at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, One Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210.
If you have any further questions with respect to this Class Action or
about this Notice, you may direct such questions to Shapiro Haber & Urmy
LLP and Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING SUCH QUESTIONS.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Contact Lisa Palin of Shapiro Haber Urmy LLP, 617-439-3939


MOTORCAR PARTS: Gold Bennett Files Securities Suit In Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Bennett & Cera LLP has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
C-99-8422-RAP (MCX), on behalf of all purchasers of Motorcar Parts &
Accessories, Inc. common stock (Nasdaq:MPAAE) during the period August 1,
1996 through July 30, 1999, inclusive. The plaintiff purchased shares of
Motorcar common stock during the Class Period and is seeking to recover
damages. The plaintiff is represented by the San Francisco law firm of
Gold Bennett & Cera LLP. For over 30 years, Gold Bennett & Cera LLP and
its predecessors have successfully engaged in commercial litigation,
including shareholder, consumer and antitrust class actions, in federal
and state courts throughout the United States, recovering hundreds of
millions of dollars for its clients. The complaint charges defendants
Motorcar and certain officers and directors with issuing false and
misleading financial statements and other public reports, which
artificially inflated the market price of Motorcar shares during the Class
Period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition,
if you acquired your Motorcar shares in the November 19, 1997 public
offering of 1,550,000 shares sold at $ 16.625, underwritten by Smith
Barney Inc. and A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., you may have additional claims
and rights.

On August 1, 1999, Motorcar announced that, as a result ofaccounting
irregularities, principally with respect to the timing of product returns,
it expects to restate its previously reported financial results for fiscal
1997, 1998, and for the 1999 fiscal year through December 31, 1998. The
Company further announced that accountants Richard A. Eisner & Company,
LLP, had withdrawn their opinion on the Company's financial statements for
the three years ended March 31, 1998, and that Company founder Mel Marks
had resigned as CEO. Since August 2, 1999, trading in Motorcar stock has
been halted on NASDAQ.

If you purchased Motorcar common stock during the Class Period, or if you
purchased Motorcar stock in the November 19, 1997 public offering, you may
no later than 60 days from August 4, 1999 move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff, if you so choose. To serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must
meet certain legal requirements. Contact Joseph M. Barton of Gold Bennett
& Cera LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, California
94105, by telephone at 800/778-1822 or 415/777-2230, by facsimile at
415/777-5189 or by e-mail at jbarton@gbcsf.com


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Milberg Unsuccessful in Ousting Weiss & Yourman
------------------------------------------------------------------- There
has long been concern that counsel in federal class action securities
fraud litigation may follow inappropriate practices when contacting
potential members of the class, the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse
notes. In an order dated August 16, 1999, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong
considers a situation in which Weiss & Yourman offered to reimburse
brokers for the costs incurred in mailings to brokerage clients to enlarge
the plaintiff group it represented.

Milberg Weiss, representing a competing group of plaintiffs challenged
this conduct. Milberg Weiss charged Weiss & Yourman with: (1) violations
of PSLRA provisions prohibiting solicitation or remuneration by brokers or
dealers; (2) violations of rules of professional conduct regarding
targeted solicitations; and (3) false and misleading statements to the
class.

Judge Armstrong was not persuaded by Milberg's arguments, holding that
Weiss & Yourman is capable of adequately representing the class.

The court's order, the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse speculates,
raises the possibility that plaintiff counsel will, in the future, mount
more aggressive campaigns to accumulate the largest groups of "lead
plaintiffs," who will be willing to retain that law firm as lead counsel.
These campaigns may include directed mailings to brokerage clients who may
be members of the purported class.

A full-text copy of the order, Knisley v. Network Associates, Inc. (Docket
No. C99-1729 SBA) is available from the Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse at
http://securities.stanford.edu/decisions/neta/99cv01729/990816or.htmlat
no charge.


PEGASYSTEMS INC.: Vows Defense For Securities Suit In Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Chelverus Case

In April 1998, a complaint purporting to be a class action was filed with
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging that the Company and several of its officers violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the Commission thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

In December 1998, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated
Complaint which names the Company, the Company's President (Alan Trefler)
and a former officer and director (Ira Vishner) as defendants.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and
misleading financial statements and press releases concerning the
Company's publicly reported earnings. The Amended Complaint seeks
certification of a class of persons who purchased the Company's Common
Stock between July 2, 1997 and October 29, 1997, and does not specify the
amount of damages sought. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss
this litigation to which the plaintiffs have replied. The Company intends
to defend this matter vigorously.

                               Gelfer Case

In December 1998, a complaint also purporting to be a class action was
filed with the Court alleging that the Company and Alan Trefler violated
Section 10(b)of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Commission
thereunder, and that Mr. Trefler also violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The litigation was filed recently after the Company's
announcement on November 24, 1998 that it might be recording revenue
adjustments, on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the
Company's Common Stock between October 29, 1998 through November 24, 1998.
The Complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. Plaintiffs
have indicated that they intend to file an amended complaint. The
defendants have not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading in
this action. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.


ROCHE: Former Top Executive Pleads Guilty To Vitamin Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A former top executive of the Swiss pharmaceutical firm Hoffmann-La Roche
agreed to plead guilty to price fixing as part of the Justice Department's
ongoing antitrust probe of the vitamin industry. Roland Brönnimann,
former president of the company's Vitamins and Fine Chemicals Division,
will serve a five-month jail sentence and pay a $ 150,000 fine for his
role in the international conspiracy, the Justice Department said.


ST. JOHN'S: Military School Sued Over Anti-Semitism And Abuse Of Cadets
----------------------------------------------------------------------- A
Deerfield couple and four other Illinois parents on Thursday sued a widely
regarded military academy near Milwaukee, alleging the school permitted
rampant anti-Semitism and emotional and physical abuse of its cadets by
other students and academy administrators.

Filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the lawsuit, which seeks class-action
status, alleges that cadets at St. John's Northwestern Military Academy, a
college preparatory school, were subjected to beatings by other cadets,
hazings and verbal assaults. The school also allowed gambling and drug use
on school grounds, the suit claims.

Not only did the school administration routinely cover up these incidents,
the suit alleges, but academy leaders encouraged the behavior by targeting
certain students for dismissal and not disciplining some students
properly.

"I feel sick about this. This is not something we wanted," said Gary S.
Meyers of Deerfield, who owns a north suburban public relations firm and
who, along with his wife, Edie, is a plaintiff in the suit. Their son
Aaron, now 14, left St. John's in January after a dispute over whether he
had lied about not doing his homework. "No one in their right mind likes
to file a lawsuit or see the garbage that's happened there," Meyers said.
"But if you see something that's wrong, you've got to try to correct it."

An attorney for St. John's noted that he had not seen the lawsuit, but he
dismissed it as "frivolous," claiming Meyers has an ax to grind against
the school because his son failed to achieve academically.

Meyers "is a public relations executive who is getting his revenge in the
press for having to withdraw his son from St. John's for all sorts of
things that had nothing to do with discrimination," said lawyer Bruce
O'Neill.

O'Neill said the teenager was disciplined for academic failings, honor
code violations and other reasons the lawyer did not specify. "This is a
marvelous institution and has been for more than 114 years," O'Neill said.
"These are baseless allegations in a lawsuit that will be dismissed at the
start."

Based in Delafield, Wis., about 20 miles west of Milwaukee, St. John's is
one of the country's more widely known military boarding schools for
youths, with nearly half its students coming from Illinois. Founded in
1884, the school has about 350 cadets and counts among its graduates
former U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) and Daniel Gerber, founder of
baby-food maker Gerber Products Co.

The suit, which seeks $20 million in punitive damages, claims that the
school violated a state consumer fraud law and fraudulently misrepresented
itself in other ways.

The school states in its TV commercials, broadcast primarily in the
Chicago area, that 100 percent of its graduates were accepted to the
college of their choice and that students were "prepared for success in
life" through education and "moral teaching."

The suit alleges that, among other misrepresentations, the commercials
contain false statements, in part because many students leave the
institution early and college admission test scores of students are low.

The lawsuit also alleges that the school took no steps to prevent physical
and emotional abuse and sexual assaults; allowed "blanket parties," or
group beatings of cadets by other students; permitted gambling rings to
run rampant; and fostered a climate in which "illegal and improper conduct
was encouraged and encouraged to be covered up by students rather than
reported."

Meyers said his son, who now attends a military academy in Kentucky, was
stalked, threatened with death by another student and regularly taunted
for being a Jew.

The school dismissed Jewish students for "minor infractions, which were
often manufactured for the purpose of dismissing the students," the suit
states. Jewish students regularly were harassed for observing religious
holidays and threatened with expulsion if they complained, the suit
claims.

As it was disciplining Jewish cadets, the school readmitted non-Jewish
students who sold drugs and committed assaults, the suit alleges.

St. John's was founded by an Episcopalian priest but has no religious
affiliation.

O'Neill noted that a civil rights complaint that Meyers filed on behalf of
his son was dismissed within a week of its filing earlier this month.

The equal rights division of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce
Development rejected the complaint because the department said it had no
jurisdiction over a private institution.

In the complaint, Meyers alleged the school discriminated against his son
by refusing to allow a bar mitzvah in the school's chapel and by
dismissing him from the school because he is a Jew.

Besides the school, the lawsuit also names as defendants Perry Schwartz,
Frank Zachary and Steven Schroeppel, who are all Chicago-area residents
and members of the executive committee of the school's board of trustees.

Other plaintiffs, all parents of former students, include Gail Alterio of
Wilmette, Donna A. Joseph of Skokie, Vicky Beard of Downstate Oregon and
Lauren Caruso, whose address was not immediately available. (Chicago
Tribune 8-20-1999)


THOMSON CONSUMER: Settles Suit In Indiana Over Age Bias At Severance
--------------------------------------------------------------------Thomson
admitted no wrongdoing at a joint news conference with the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, saying it was only trying to do right
by longtime employees left out of work.

"We understand that the EEOC has an obligation to fully investigate and
pursue any charge of discrimination in the workplace," said Thomson
spokesman Richard Knoph. "We do, however, feel discouraged that our
attempt ... to do what we believed was the right thing, was perceived by
some to have been the wrong thing."

A class action lawsuit filed by the EEOC on June 15 named Thomson and two
locals of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which
negotiated the severance packages on behalf of their members.

"The EEOC will not tolerate such discrimination against older employees in
the workplace, particularly during the very difficult time of a plant
closing or downsizing," EEOC Commissioner Paul Steven Miller said.

The $7.1 million will come solely from Thomson, but it resolves the
complaint against the union, as well.

Individual payments will vary, based on length of employment and other
factors, but on average the 800 plaintiffs will receive about $10,000
each.

The dispute followed Thomson's decision to close its Bloomington
television assembly plant and distribution center in March 1998 and
partially close a plastics facility in Indianapolis in April 1998.

Moving those operations to Mexico to take advantage of lower labor
expenses cost Bloomington 1,100 jobs, and another 400 were lost in
Indianapolis. About a third of the displaced workers were eligible to
retire.

At issue was a severance package that included so-called bridge payments
to employees with 30 or more years of service.

The payments were intended to assist workers who were not old enough to
qualify for pensions or post-retirement medical benefits. Under an
age-based formula, workers got smaller bonuses the closer they were to
retirement, and no bonuses if they were at least 55 -- the age at which
retirement benefits kicked in.

That formula violated the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, Miller
said.

The settlement is the first time that act has been applied to a severance
package, he added.

Thomson and union leaders reached the original severance agreement, worth
$42 million, in 1997. The plan was ratified by more than 80 percent of
workers at both plants.

Then older workers began complaining that they got no bonus, or a smaller
bonus than younger colleagues. "It wasn't fair," said Frances Flynn, 59,
who had worked for the company 32 years. "People with more service time
got less money than people who hadn't worked there as long. "I know they
probably thought the older workers didn't need it because we were closer
to retirement, but we're the ones who need it most. It's the older people
who have a harder time looking for a new job. Nobody wants to hire us."

Other Thomson alumni, such as 32-year employee Merlin Hamke, were more
sympathetic. Hamke, 60, said he believes Thomson made an honest mistake.
"I thought we got a pretty good settlement, considering the company wasn't
doing well at the time," he said. "And I really don't think they figured
on so many young people with that much seniority."


TOBACCO LITIGATION: AIF Of Florida Files Amicus Curiae Brief In Miami
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) filed an amicus curiae brief with
the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami. The brief is being filed in
support of the tobacco companies' appeal of the order of Circuit Court
Judge Robert Kaye setting the Phase II trial procedures in the class
action tobacco litigation, Howard A. Engle, M.D., et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, et al.

AIF's specific objections relate to provision three of the order, which
instructs the jury to determine a punitive damage award for the entire
class on a dollar-amount basis. This is a break from the standard practice
of using the damages that compensate the injured party as the yardstick in
determining the amount of punitive damages. Under Judge Kaye's order, the
punishment will be decided well before the court identifies who was harmed
and to what extent they were harmed.

"This sets a terrible precedent for all Florida businesses," said Jon L.
Shebel, AIF's president & CEO. "Throughout this whole tobacco episode
we've watched the personal injury lawyers use any means they can to
extract money from the tobacco companies. But you'd better believe that
those same lawyers will turn right around and use those same means against
every other Florida business if it means they win big contingency fees."

The amicus brief was prepared by the law firm of Stiles, Taylor & Grace,
P.A. According to the firm's Mary Ann Stiles, Judge Kaye's order will
inevitably lead to any number of unfair consequences, not just for
defendants, but also for plaintiffs.

"Every single plaintiff will receive the same share of punitive damages,"
says Stiles. "We don't even know how many plaintiffs there are, much less
who they are, the extent of their alleged injuries, and whether the
defendants will be liable for damages to them."

Stiles continued, "You could have a slightly injured plaintiff with a
small amount of compensatory damages and another with millions of dollars
of compensatory damages. Yet they both get the same amount of punitive
damages. In other words, in the eyes of the court the defendant was
equally at blame in both situations."

Stiles also pointed out that this sets Florida on a slippery slope that
could end up with non-class action lawsuits having punitive damages
decided before compensatory damages.

Randy Miller, AIF's senior executive vice president & COO, said, "The
public policy represented in this order is in direct opposition to the
public policy on civil justice set by Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida
Legislature during the last session. The elected officials of Florida want
a tort system that promises balance and rationality. That's the opposite
of what we'll get if this order stands."

Shebel also noted that in the Medicaid Third-Party Liability Act
litigation the plaintiff lawyers' fees amounted to 25 percent of the total
recovery. "The plaintiff lawyers in the Engle case are asking for $100
billion in punitive damages, and that's just a portion of the eventual
total recovery. Whatever percentage of $100 billion they get, they will be
a couple of filthy rich lawyers."

He added, "This is just par for the course with the trial lawyers. They
use a pariah defendant to rewrite the playbook, and pretty soon everybody
has to play by the new rules. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the
personal injury lawyers are the only team that always wins."

Associated Industries of Florida is a statewide employers association
representing more than 10,000 businesses that range from large
multinational corporations to small family-owned enterprises. AIF is
commonly known as "The Voice of Florida Business."


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ap. Ct. Oks Delivery Of CA's Share Of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A state court of appeals rejected an attempt by a smokers-rights groupto
block the delivery of California's share of the national tobacco liability
settlement, clearing the way for the $25 billion in payments from
cigarette companies to the state and numerous local municipalities.

The decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in San Diego cleared
the last legal hurdle blocking delivery of the money, San Francisco city
attorney Louise Renne said. San Francisco was the first municipality in
the state to join the lawsuit.

The case was brought by a group called "Smokers for Fairness," which tried
to block delivery of the money by filing papers arguing that it should
have been allowed to join the class-action lawsuit filed by the district
attorneys from 46 states and hundreds of local governments. A Superior
Court judge had earlier rejected the claim, and the group appealed.

The court found that the group had not taken the necessary procedural
steps required for an appeal. The court ruled that the settlement is now
final and can no longer be attacked in a California court.

"With this decision, there should no longer be any excuse for the tobacco
companies to dispute the finality of the settlement in California," Renne
said in a prepared statement.

While municipalities across the country have suggested ways to secure
bonds with the money, few governments in California have yet to latch onto
the idea. Orange County is floating an idea to use some of the money to
pay down bankruptcy-related debt.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Next Phase Of Florida Suit Can Be Delayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The start of the next phase of the Florida smokers class-action suit is in
jeopardy because of continued maneuvering by the tobacco industry and the
untimely death of a plaintiff who was scheduled to have her claim tried
first.

Jurors were scheduled to return from a two-month layoff Sept. 7 in order
to establish damages for Mary Farnan and Angie Dellavecchia, two lifetime
smokers. They were selected by the plaintiffs' attorneys to represent as
many as 500,000 smokers in Florida that make up the class suing the
industry.

But late last month, Dellavecchia, 53, died after a lengthy battle with
cancer. It remains uncertain how her death will affect the next phase of
the trial. Her testimony is preserved on videotape.

The judge in the case, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Robert Kaye, could decide
to allow Farnan's claim to be tried alone, allow a claim by Dellavecchia's
estate to go forward in her stead or appoint another representative from
the class to have his or her case tried with Farnan's.

Stanley Rosenblatt, an attorney for the plaintiff class, could not
bereached for comment. The lawyers in the case are prohibited from
speaking with the media by a court order.

The same jury that is set to return next month determined in July that the
industry is responsible for the deaths and diseases suffered by smokers.
The jury, however, could not award damages. That was left for the coming
phase. Not only were jurors to set damages for Farnan and Dellavecchia,
but they were also to have determined whether punitive damages should be
awarded against the industry. A punitives award, which would be applied to
the entire class of smokers, could run in the hundreds of millions or even
billions of dollars.

There are other reasons why the trial's second phase could be delayed. The
tobacco industry has appealed Judge Kaye's order allowing the possible
punitive damage award to the 3rd District Court of Appeal. Along with that
appeal, the industry is again trying to force Kaye from the case. The
judge denied motions by industry lawyers to recuse himself on several
occasions during the trial's first phase. Now, the industry is asking the
3rd District to remove the judge. In papers filed with the appellate court
last week, the industry charges Kaye is unfit to preside over the trial
because, as a former smoker, he is a potential member of the plaintiff
class. Kaye, the brief alleges, suffers from angina and atherosclerosis
"two heart conditions that the ... the jury has specifically found can be
caused by cigarette smoking." This gives Kaye a financial incentive to
favor the plaintiffs, the industry argues. Moreover, the industry said,
"at no time during the case did Judge Kaye ever disclose his smoking
history." Company lawyers learned about Kaye's past only when the judge
underwent an emergency angioplasty in June. Based on his alleged smoker's
history, industry lawyers earlier this month asked Kaye to take himself
off the case. He refused. If the 3rd District chooses to take up the
matter of Kaye's disqualification, then the Sept. 7 trial date would
almost assuredly be postponed. The appeals court, as of yet, has given no
sign of doing so.

Advocates for the industry include South Florida lawyers Norman Coll,
Arthur England, Mark Hicks, Jose Martinez, Edward Moss, R. Benjamine Reid,
David Ross and Stephen N. Zack and Philadelphia attorney Robert C. Heim of
Dechert Price & Rhoads. This story originally appeared in the Miami Daily
Business Review. (The Legal Intelligencer 8-20-1999)


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ontario Suit To Block BAT Bid For Canada's Imasco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed to block BritishAmerican Tobacco
Plc's C$10.3 billion bid for tobacco, financial services and drug store
conglomerate Imasco Ltd. , Canadian court documents show.

In a claim filed in an Ontario court against London-based BAT and
Montreal's Imasco, plaintiff Daniel Stern seeks an injunction against
proceeding with the offer, arguing that it is inadequate at C$40 a share.
The suit, filed on behalf of a class of plaintiffs, also claims damages of
C$1.26 billion.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Appeals Against Aussi Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Australia's major tobacco companies is to appeal a decision
allowing people with smoking-related diseases to run a landmark class
action. Philip Morris filed appeal papers in the Federal Court relating to
decision by Justice Murray Wilcox. Justice Wilcox dismissed applications
by Philip Morris, WD & HO Wills and Rothmans to strike out the proceedings
against them.

The action is based on claims of negligence, and misleading and deceptive
conduct by the companies.

In a statement, Philip Morris said the company believed the case should
not proceed as a class action because individual claims gave rise to many
different issues which only can be determined on a case-by-case basis.
"For example, every smoker is unique having smoked different products, at
different times, in different quantities and for different lengths of
time," the statement said. (AAP Newsfeed 8-20-1999)


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.

Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.


                    * * *  End of Transmission  * * *