CAR_Public/990929.MBX                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 29, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 166

                                 Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Female Financial Advisors Sue Over Sex Discrimination
BANK OF NY: Shareholders Sue In Man. Over Money Laundering By Russians
BOEING CO: Settlement Pending in Employees Racial Discrimination Suit
BOSTON CELTICS: Faces Unitholders Suit In Delaware Over Reorganization
CA: Sued Over Welfare, SSI And Cars For Families With Disabled Kids

CARL CANNON: Attorney’s Fees Not Aggregated In Alabama, 11th Cir. Rules
DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES: Charged Of Tying Franchise To Purchase Of System
DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Announces Tentative Settlement For N Carolina EIFS Suit
EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT: Intends To Defend Vigorously Securities Suit In NY
FEN-PHEN: Interneuron Comments On Ct Rejection Of Proposed Settlement

FEN-PHEN: Judge Rejects Interneuron’s Proposed Settlement
FIRST AMERICAN: Settlement Proposed For N.J. Suit Over Credit Reporting
GANTOS INC: Settles For Shareholders Suit In Michigan
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Jewish Group Urges German Firms To Join Fund
LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Faces Securities Suit In Del. Over Merger Agreement

MEDICAL MANAGER: Will Defend Vigorously Securities Suit In Florida
MEDICAL MANAGER: Settles For Suit Over Y2K Issues Of Software
METLIFE INSURANCE: Hot Line Advises MA Former And Current Policyholders
MFN FINANCIAL: Sued Over A/C Irregularities Prior To Ch 11 Case In Ill.
PAYDAY LENDERS: Ill. Dept. Sued Over Rule Permitting Postdated Checks

RANGE RESOURCES: Settles For Domain Stockholders Suit In Del Re Merger
RED CROSS: Ontario Approves Hep C Deal; Case Across Canada Near Closure
RITE AID: Donovan Miller Files Suit In Phil. Over Surcharge On Drugs
WAR VICTIMS: Allied PoWs Appeal In Tokyo For Compensation From Japan

* Carolinas Roll Call Report Syndicate

                             *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Female Financial Advisors Sue Over Sex Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Four women filed sex discrimination charges against American Express
Financial Advisors for discriminating against its female financial
advisors as a class. Filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), this case goes to the core of how American Express
Financial Advisors does business.

The plaintiffs, who are current or former financial advisors, allege
that American Express Financial Advisors treats its female advisors as
second class citizens in all aspects of their employment from the day
they begin working. The suit alleges that American Express Financial
Advisors management, which is almost exclusively male, favors young male
advisors and grooms them for success by handing them lucrative accounts,
mentoring and training them, and bending the rules to make sure they
succeed. Women, on the other hand, face a barricade of hostility. The
women allege they were not provided with leads for the lucrative
accounts the men received, were not given equal training, and the
criteria for promotion is changed when women advisors come close to
meeting it.

In the Twin Cities market, where American Express Financial Advisors is
headquartered, there are more than 70 district and training managers;
not one is a woman. Nationwide, American Express Financial Advisors has
43 group vice presidents, women hold only 3 of those positions. The
women allege that older women, in particular, face greater obstacles
because both their age and their gender are strikes against them. One of
the women was told by her manager that the Group Vice President for the
Twin Cities who is in charge of the Advisors "doesn't like women in
management."

The suit represents "a challenge to the corporate culture that clings to
the stereotype that the only way to be successful at selling financial
products is to be an aggressive young man" according to plaintiffs'
counsel Susan Stokes, a partner in the Minneapolis office of Sprenger &
Lang.

Smith Barney was faced with a similar class action and, in November 1997
reached a settlement with the nearly 23,000 female class members. More
recently, in June 1998, Merrill Lynch settled with approximately 2,800
female brokers who brought the same types of claims. As in those cases,
the American Express women allege they can not overcome the obstacles to
their advancement because management holds views that stereotype women.
When one plaintiff tried to question her managers about accounts or
opportunities she was entitled to but denied, her managers told her to
wait until her husband earned more money. They also implied that she
should work retail at Dayton's to earn extra money if she was having
difficulties.

Bill O'Brien, co-lead counsel with Stokes, says that "these women are
highly qualified, intelligent financial advisors. American Express
Financial Advisors does itself and its clients a disservice by
preventing their natural success."

American Express Financial Advisors management has been hostile to the
women's attempts to try to address the systemic discrimination from
within the company. When plaintiffs Shelly Kosen and Lois Wisocky
approached high level management about the problems women advisors face,
they were told they could leave the company. Two days later, management
distributed a threatening article to all first year advisors describing
how geese who fall out of a "V" formation would face problems, but those
who stay in formation would be supported.

The women are represented both by Sprenger & Lang, and Miller - O'Brien
- Bloom, Contact Sprenger & Lang, Minneapolis Susan Stokes,
888/285-6222.


BANK OF NY: Shareholders Sue In Man. Over Money Laundering By Russians
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholders' lawsuit has been filed against Bank of New York Co. and
its directors accusing them of allowing Russian organized-crime figures
to launder billions of dollars through the bank illegally.

The suit, filed last Friday, seeks class-action status as a suit on
behalf of all shareholders in the company, but that designation is
subject to approval by a U.S. judge. The suit, filed in Federal District
Court in Manhattan, asks for damages on behalf of the bank itself for
what the shareholders call reckless mismanagement of the company by the
directors.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating suspicious money
transfers through accounts at the Bank of New York last autumn, but the
investigation has only recently become widely publicized. Investigators
have found that at least $4.2 billion and perhaps as much as $10 billion
in Russian money flowed through the bank, and they are working to
determine how it was used.

Bank executives have admitted lapses in procedures, including a failure
to challenge or halt suspicious activity in nine accounts at the core of
the inquiry. Neither the bank nor any employees have been charged with
any crimes. (International Herald Tribune (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France)
9-27-1999)


BOEING CO: Settlement Pending in Employees Racial Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $ 15 million settlement in a racial discrimination lawsuit
against The Boeing Co. should be approved, lawyers for the company and
most of the plaintiffs told a federal judge.

A group of black Boeing employees went to court last Thursday to argue
that the settlement was inadequate. But Oscar Desper III, a lawyer for
the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit, said that from the beginning
they were told "there's probably not a big financial jackpot at the end
of the rainbow." The settlement, announced in January by Boeing Chairman
Philip M. Condit and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader who
participated in the negotiations, is "fair, adequate and reasonable ...
a particularly good settlement," Desper told U.S. District Judge John
Coughenour.

The settlement covered lawsuits filed last year on behalf of employees
in the Seattle and Philadelphia areas who alleged discrimination against
blacks was common at Boeing plants, especially in selecting people for
promotion.

The lawsuits also alleged that blacks were harassed and faced
retaliation when they complained. While not admitting any wrongdoing,
Boeing agreed to spend $ 15 million to compensate the workers, pay their
lawyer fees and set up programs to fight discrimination.

About 13,000 past and present Boeing workers would share in the
settlement. But some workers are challenging it, saying it fails to
provide enough money or the means to prevent future discrimination. Alan
B. Epstein, a Philadelphia lawyer seeking to overturn the deal, said 30
of the 43 complainants who first went to Desper and his team were
dropped without explanation as plaintiff class representatives and
therefore stand to receive far smaller payments than
johnnies-come-lately who did less to advance the case." We had to be
very strategic and very selective because we knew they would face very
close scrutiny," Bruce Harrell, another class action lawyer, said of the
selection of class representatives. Epstein said some principal class
representatives should be denied that status because they received
promotions from Boeing while the lawsuit was pending.

Boeing lawyer C. Geoffrey Weirich said there was no basis for rejecting
the agreement. "There was never any quid pro quo for these people to be
promoted. They got the process they deserved," Weirich said.

Epstein asked the judge to refuse to certify the class of employees
covered by the case, which would also kill the settlement, or at least
reject the agreement and send the parties back to the bargaining table.

Coughenour said he would rule "probably by the middle of next week."
Coughenour also heard from more than a dozen Boeing workers who oppose
the settlement. Most said it wouldn't do enough to prevent further bias,
complained that they had never been allowed to vote on it and in some
cases said they first learned of the agreement from news reports or
superiors at Boeing rather than from their own lawyers. "Money is not
important to me. I just want to see justice done," said Ann Dyas, an
employee in Wichita, Kan.

Boeing is also fighting two separate federal discrimination lawsuits
filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, one on behalf of a
Vietnamese-American who was fired and then reinstated after the case was
brought and the other on behalf of unsuccessful job applicants who
claimed bias under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In addition, the Labor Department is investigating to determine whether
the company has met affirmative action and nondiscrimination
requirements for federal contractors. Boeing had $ 11.1 billion in
government contracts last year, second only to Lockheed Martin as a
military contractor.The proposed clas -action settlement includes:

* $ 3.8 million for 268 individuals cited by name.
* $ 3.5 million to be divided among the rest of those covered by the
  case and who file claims.
* $ 3.8 million for Desper and the other class action lawyers,
  including $ 750,000 to monitor compliance and review any new bias
  claims.
* Epstein, whose initial case on behalf of seven salaried workers at
  Boeing Helicopters in Ridley Township, Pa., was folded into the
  larger case, would get $ 200,000 of that money.
* $ 3.6 million for diversity programs that opponents say Boeing
  instituted before the settlement was negotiated.

Desper said Boeing also agreed to overhaul its equal employment
opportunity programs, implement a nondiscrimination layoff policy,
provide more information on promotion opportunities and decisions, deal
fairly with complaints about promotions and establish a system to
monitor any problems. (The Legal Intelligencer 9-27-1999)


BOSTON CELTICS: Faces Unitholders Suit In Delaware Over Reorganization
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Celtics Limited Partnership's most significant operating asset is
its indirect investment in Celtics Basketball, which owns and operates
the Boston Celtics.

As a member of the NBA, Celtics Basketball is a defendant along with the
other NBA members in various lawsuits incidental to the NBA's basketball
operations. Celtics Basketball will generally be liable, jointly and
severally, with all other members of the NBA for the costs of defending
such lawsuits and any liabilities of the NBA which might result from
such lawsuits. From time to time, Boston Celtics Limited Partnership II
may become a party to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course
of business.

In July and August 1998, four separate class action complaints were
filed by Unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County against BCLP II, Celtics, Inc., Paul E.
Gaston, Don F. Gaston, Paula B. Gaston, John H.M. Leithead and John B.
Marsh III, each a director or former director of Celtics, Inc. BCLP II
GP, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Celtics, Inc. The named
plaintiffs, who each purported to bring their individual actions on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are Kenneth L.
Rilander, Harbor Finance Partners, Maryann Kelly and Kathleen Kruse
Perry.

Each of the Complaints alleges, among other things, that the
Reorganization (described below) was unfair to former BCLP II
Unitholders, and seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages,
including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses. The Partnership
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by Mr. Rilander on July
29, 1998, and discovery in that case has been stayed by agreement of the
parties. The Complaints have been consolidated. On August 6, 1999, the
Court of Chancery issued an opinion granting in part, and denying in
part, the Partnership's Motion to Dismiss, and on September 3, 1999, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated Complaint.

                          Reorganization

Boston Celtics Limited Partnership ("BCLP" or the "Partnership") is a
Delaware limited partnership that was formed on April 13, 1998 in
connection with the Reorganization (defined below) of Boston Celtics
Limited Partnership II ("BCLP II"), also a Delaware limited partnership.
BCLP owns a 99% limited partnership interest in BCLP II.

"Units" with respect to Pre- Reorganization time periods means units
representing limited partnership interests in BCLP II and, with respect
to post-Reorganization time periods, means units representing limited
partnership interests in BCLP.

                    Overview of the Reorganization

At the time of BCLP II's organization in 1986, publicly traded limited
partnerships ("PTPs" or "Master Limited Partnerships") such as BCLP II
were not subject to federal income tax at the partnership level. In
December 1987, however, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1987. Among
other things, the Revenue Act of 1987 provided that PTPs generally would
be taxed as corporations for federal income tax purposes (the "Tax
Change"), except that PTPs existing on December 17, 1987 would be
"grandfathered" until their first taxable year beginning after December
31, 1997. Accordingly, BCLP II would have become taxable as a
corporation during its taxable year beginning July 1, 1998 if it
remained a PTP, unless it elected to pay the Toll Tax (as defined
below).

In August 1997, Congress passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which
permitted PTPs to elect, as an alternative to taxation as a corporation,
to pay a federal tax at a rate of 3.5% of gross income from the active
conduct of trades or businesses (the "Toll Tax") in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 1997.

After evaluating the Tax Change and alternatives to minimize the adverse
impact of the Tax Change, including payment of the Toll Tax, the
Reorganization was consummated in which BCLP II:

distributed (the "Distribution") to holders of BCLP II Units, at each
holder's option, either (i) $20 in principal amount of Subordinated
Debentures and $1 in cash for each BCLP II Unit held of record, or (ii)
one Castle Creek Interest (defined below) for each 100 BCLP II Units
held of record; and effected a merger (the "Merger") in which (i) BCLP
II became a subsidiary partnership of BCLP, a publicly held entity taxed
as a corporation, (ii) holders of BCLP II Units that received
Subordinated Debentures and cash in the Distribution received one BCLP
Unit for each BCLP II Unit held of record upon which Subordinated
Debentures and cash were distributed and (iii) holders of BCLP II Units
who received Castle Creek Interests in the Distribution retained their
Castle Creek Interests, but the BCLP II Units with respect to which
Castle Creek Interests were distributed were canceled.

"Castle Creek Interests" represent units of limited partnership interest
in Castle Creek Partners, L.P. ("Castle Creek"), a privately held
partnership with significant restrictions as to the transferability of
its units of limited partnership interest.

The Distribution and the Merger are collectively referred to as the
"Reorganization." BCLP and Castle Creek each indirectly own a
proportionate interest in BCLP II's pre-Reorganization net assets based
on unitholder elections in the Reorganization.

             Pre-Reorganization Ownership Structure

Prior to the Reorganization, BCLP II, through its subsidiaries, owned
and operated the Boston Celtics professional basketball team (the
"Boston Celtics") of the National Basketball Association (the "NBA") and
held investment assets. BCLP II owned 99% of Celtics Limited Partnership
("CLP"), which owned the Boston Celtics. BCLP II also wholly owned BCCLP
Holding Corporation ("Holdings"), which in turn wholly owned Celtics
Capital Corporation ("CCC"). CCC holds investments of funds derived from
the sale by Boston Celtics Broadcasting Limited Partnership ("BCBLP") of
Television Station WXFT - Channel 25 ("WFXT") of Boston, Massachusetts
in July 1995 and the sale by Boston Celtics Communications Limited
Partnership ("BCCLP") of Radio Station WEEI - 590 AM of Boston,
Massachusetts ("WEEI") in June 1994. BCBLP was indirectly owned by BCLP
II and Celtics Investments, Inc. ("CII"), BCLP's wholly owned
subsidiary. BCCLP is owned by BCLP II, CII and Celtics Communications,
Inc. ("CCI").

The 1% general partner of BCLP II was Celtics, Inc., and the 1% general
partner of CLP was Boston Celtics Corporation ("BCC"). Each of Celtics,
Inc. and BCC is a Delaware corporation whose sole stockholders are Paul
Gaston, Don Gaston (father of Paul Gaston) and Walcott Partners, L.P.
("Walcott"), an affiliate of the Gaston family.

Prior to the Reorganization, BCLP II's consolidated financial statements
included the accounts of all of its majority-owned and controlled
subsidiaries. In connection with the Reorganization, former Boston
Celtics Limited Partnership changed its name to BCLP II.

               Post-Reorganization Ownership Structure

After the Reorganization, BCLP owns a 99% limited partnership interest
in BCLP II, which owns a 99% limited partnership interest in CLP. In
addition, BCLP II wholly owns CII and Holdings, which wholly owns CCC.
Together, CCC and CLP wholly own Celtics Pride GP. Celtics Pride GP owns
a 48.3123% limited partnership interest in Celtics Basketball Holdings,
L.P. ("Celtics Basketball Holdings"), which owns a 99.999% limited
partnership interest in Celtics Basketball L.P. ("Celtics Basketball"),
which in turn owns and operates the Boston Celtics. The remaining
51.6867% limited partnership interest in Celtics Basketball Holdings,
L.P. is held by Castle Creek. See "Item 12 - Security Ownership of
Certain Beneficial Owners and Management" regarding ownership and
control of Castle Creek.

The 1% general partner of BCLP is BCLP GP, Inc. ("BCLP GP"), and the 1%
general partner of BCLP II is BCLP II GP, Inc. ("BCLP II GP"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Celtics, Inc. BCC is the 1% general partner of CLP
and is also the 0.001% general partner of both Celtics Basketball
Holdings and Celtics Basketball.

Each of Celtics, Inc., BCC and BCLP GP is a Delaware corporation. BCC's
sole stockholders are Paul Gaston and Don Gaston (father of Paul
Gaston), BCLP GP's sole stockholder is Paul Gaston, and Celtics, Inc.'s
sole stockholder is Walcott.

In connection with the Reorganization, all assets and liabilities
relating to the business of owning and operating the Boston Celtics were
transferred from CLP to Celtics Basketball, an indirect subsidiary of
BCLP. Accordingly, all of CLP's rights with respect to the following
assets and liabilities, among others, were transferred to Celtics
Basketball in the Reorganization: the NBA franchise, agreements relating
to local television, cable and radio broadcasts, sponsorship agreements,
rights to the name "Boston Celtics" and the Boston Celtics logo (subject
to the NBA's marketing and other rights), player contracts, agreements
with coaches and other team personnel, leases and credit agreements.

Subsequent to the Reorganization, BCLP, through its subsidiaries, holds
investment assets and holds a minority interest in the assets and
operations of the Boston Celtics. As a result of its indirect 48.3123%
limited partnership interest in Celtics Basketball Holdings, BCLP
accounts for its investment in the accounts of the Boston Celtics on the
equity method subsequent to the Reorganization.


CA: Sued Over Welfare, SSI And Cars For Families With Disabled Kids
-------------------------------------------------------------------
California illegally refused welfare and food stamps to families that
need a car to transport their severely disabled children, according to a
class action lawsuit filed Sept. 22, 1999.

The lead plaintiff in "Anderson vs. Saenz" lost all welfare and food
stamps for her family and became homeless because the car she needed to
transport her paraplegic six-year-old daughter cost too much. Her
daughter frequently needs emergency care.

"A mom whose child has serious health problems should be able to get to
the emergency room without her car breaking down," said Emma Leheny, of
Western Center on Law and Poverty and counsel for plaintiffs.

Under federal law, families are ineligible for food stamps and cash aid
if they own a car worth more than $ 4650. But federal law also states
that the entire value of one car is not counted if it is used for a
disabled household member. California refuses to apply this exception if
the disabled child receives Supplemental Security Income ("SSI")
disability benefits because SSI recipients are ineligible for food
stamps.

"A low-income family needs a car to transport their disabled child
whether or not the child gets disability benefits. It makes no sense to
deny the family a car, and Congress intended for them to have it," said
Clare Pastore, also of Western Center. Added Mike Keys of National
Center for Youth Law, "Parents should not have to choose between keeping
a car they need to get a disabled child to the doctor and feeding their
families."

Plaintiffs are represented by Western Center on Law and Poverty, San
Diego Friends of Legal Aid, and National Center on Youth Law. Contact
Western Center on Law and Poverty Emma Leheny, 213/487-7211, ext. 26
Clare Pastore, 213/487-7211, ext. 25.


CARL CANNON: Attorney’s Fees Not Aggregated In Alabama, 11th Cir. Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential attorney's fees, to be awarded out of a common compensatory
damage fund in a class action, may not be aggregated for amount in
controversy, jurisdictional purposes. Davis v. Carl Cannon
Chevrolet-Olds Inc., No. 98-6567 (11th Cir. 7/26/99).

Purchasers of automobile extended service contracts filed a class action
under Alabama common law and statutory law against Carl Cannon
Chevrolet-Olds Inc., a local dealership, and General Motors Acceptance
Corp. They alleged that GMAC conspired with GM dealerships to conceal
that the dealerships made a profit on the extended service contracts.

The class filed its lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Ala.,
seeking compensatory damages only. The complaint was unique in that the
last page of the pleading read "do not remove me" and contained
diversity jurisdiction-defeating features. Specifically, the complaint
stated in boldface type: "THIS ACTION IS BROUGHT SOLELY PURSUANT TO THE
COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY LAW OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA. NO CLAIM IS MADE
UNDER OR FOR ANY CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS
OF THE [United States] ... EACH CLASS MEMBER ALSO WAIVES ANY CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES OVER [75,000] ... ANY CLASS MEMBER WHO WISHES TO PURSUE PUNITIVE
DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN [75,000] MAY OPT-OUT ... .

Despite this provision, GMAC removed the action to federal court and the
plaintiffs moved to remand based upon the language of the complaint and
the fact that they disclaimed all damages greater than 75,000. The court
denied the plaintiffs' motion and found the class fraudulently joined
the local dealership to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama further concluded that the
complaint did indeed allege the "requisite amount in controversy because
the lawyers did not disclaim a fee exceeding that amount."

The consumers appealed and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
addressed whether a potential attorney's fee, awarded out of a common
fund, could count in the aggregate toward the jurisdictional minimum
needed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.

The court applied the "common fund" doctrine for equitable fee shifting.
This state law doctrine authorizes trial courts to deduct a reasonable
percentage of a common damage fund that class representatives have
collected for distribution as an attorney's fee. Typically, this
percentage is 20 percent.

Next, the 11th Circuit questioned whether a fee to be awarded from a
common fund, if it exceeds 75,000, may satisfy the amount-in-controversy
requirement. It answered that question in the negative.

Writing for the court, Judge Cox explained that in Snyder v. Harris, 414
U.S. 291 (1973) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the aggregation of
multiple plaintiffs' claims is permitted "only when plaintiffs [have]
unite[d] to enforce a single title or right to which they have a common
and undivided interest." Following Snyder, the 11th Circuit ruled that a
common-fund attorney's fee does not represent such a "single title or
right" because the damages claimed were compensatory and, thus, the
attorney's fees were no more combinable than compensatory damages would
be. Also, the common damage fund fee did not represent a "right" of the
plaintiffs, said the 11th Circuit where the fee is a matter between the
court and the plaintiffs' lawyers and is calculated without
representation for the class members' interests.

The attorney's fees, said the court, were not a collective benefit for
the class, but a form of direct compensation for the attorneys who acted
as "private attorneys general" in the expectation of money. Ruling that
the common fund was not subject to aggregation, the 11th Circuit vacated
the District Court's order and remanded the case for further
proceedings. (Consumer Financial Services Law Report 8-24-1999)


DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES: Charged Of Tying Franchise To Purchase Of System
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsolutions Inc. v. Doctor's Associates Inc., -- F. Supp.2d -- , 1999
WL 592079 (D. Conn. 1999)

                              FACTS

In 1998, Doctor's Associates, the franchisor of Subway sandwich shops,
mandated that all Subway franchisees employ a computerized point-of-sale
(POS) system by Jan. 1, 2001. Subway had agreed that an unrelated
company, RBS, would be the sole approved POS vendor to the Subway chain
until CRA, an affiliate of Doctor's Associates, developed its own POS
system.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit were vendors of competing POS systems.
Their complaint alleged that Doctor's Associates unlawfully tied the
Subway franchise to the purchase of a POS system from RBS, and that
Doctor's Associates, CRA and RBS unlawfully conspired to unreasonably
restrain and/or eliminate competition in the Subway POS market. The
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

                             DECISION

Motion granted in part and denied in part. The court refused to dismiss
the tying and antitrust conspiracy allegations against Doctor's
Associates, but dismissed the antitrust conspiracy allegations against
its affiliate, CRA.

Under the antitrust laws, a "tying" arrangement is one where an
agreement to sell one product -- the "tying" product -- is contingent on
the buyer purchasing a different product -- the "tied" product. In
franchising, the franchise itself is alleged to be the tying product,
while products or services the franchisee is required to obtain by the
franchisor are the tied products. The plaintiffs in this suit alleged
that Doctor's Associates tied its franchise to the purchase of the
Subway POS system from RBS.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs could not establish that the
Subway franchise and the POS system were separate products, and also
argued that there was no market for the Subway POS system distinct from
the Subway franchise market. Various suppliers sold POS systems to
Subway franchisees before Doctor's Associates agreed to give DBS the
exclusive right to do so. This, the court reasoned, showed that the
Subway franchise market was distinct from the POS system market and that
two separate "products" existed.

To succeed on their tying claim, the plaintiffs would also have to prove
that Subway possessed sufficient power in the market for the tying
product to force purchases of the tied product. The plaintiffs argued
that it was unnecessary to give extensive evidence of market dominance
because the "lock-in" theory developed in the Kodak case should apply
(Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 461
[1992] ). The plaintiffs argued that Subway franchisees were "locked in"
to a relationship with Doctor's Associates after substantially investing
in the development of the franchise, and that such a situation could
satisfy the market power element. The court agreed.

The plaintiffs' claim against CRA that it conspired with Doctor's
Associates and RBS to restrain trade was dismissed as vague and
conclusory because the plaintiffs failed to assert that these three
entities even communicated with each other.

However, the court found the conspiracy allegations against Doctor's
Associates were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The complaint
alleged that Doctor's Associates and RBS entered into an agreement
designating RBS as the sole approved POS system vendor for the Subway
chain, that the purpose of this agreement was to deprive Subway
franchisees from access to competitive POS vendors and exclude other POS
system vendors from the POS market, and that Doctor's Associates
ultimately sought to designate its own affiliate, CRA, as the sole
approved POS system vendor. The court observed that such actions would
obviously further Doctor's Associates' economic interests to the
detriment of other competitors, and ruled that these allegations were
sufficient to state a conspiracy claim against Doctor's Associates under
@ 1 of the Sherman Act. (Franchising Business & Law Alert, August 1999)


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Announces Tentative Settlement For N Carolina EIFS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement resolves 1996 litigation that affects North Carolina
plaintiffs only.

In a move designed to reaffirm its commitment to its customers and its
products, Dryvit Systems, Inc., manufacturer of exterior insulation and
finish systems (known as "EIFS"), announced a tentative settlement in
the North Carolina Class Action Lawsuit, Ruff v. Parex, et. al.

The suit was brought in early 1996 on behalf of North Carolina
homeowners who claim to have suffered water intrusion damage on the EIFS
clad homes.

Although the full details of the settlement have not been agreed upon at
this time, basic terms will provide for a cash payment to North Carolina
homeowners who establish that they have a barrier-type Dryvit EIF system
on their home and can demonstrate moisture-related damage.

"Dryvit firmly believes that barrier EIFS are well suited for
residential construction when the homes are built properly, meet local
building codes, good construction practices are followed, and the system
is installed according to manufacturer's specification," said Peter
Balint, President and Chief Executive Officer of Dryvit Systems, Inc.
"It is important to note that Ruff v. Parex, et. al. applies to
residential barrier systems only."

The suit was initially certified a class action before any of the
defendants were served the complaint and had an opportunity to respond.
Dryvit has steadfastly maintained that the original class certification
was illegal, the maintenance of the class was clearly inappropriate and
that the claims were legally insufficient.

"Although we still believe Dryvit would have prevailed in the
litigation, faced with the near certainty of protracted litigation and
expensive litigation defense expenses, the company's insurers felt that
it made economic sense to settle the case at this time," Balint said.

Regardless of the outcome of the pending trial, in light of the curious
way the case was originally certified, the case could have continued for
years at the appellate level.


EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT: Intends To Defend Vigorously Securities Suit In NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embryo Development Corp. has been named as a defendant in a consolidated
class action pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. In a consolidated complaint, plaintiffs assert
claims against the Company and others under the Securities Act of 1933,
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and New York common and statutory
law arising out of the November 1995 initial public offering of 1
million shares of the Company's common stock. According to the
complaint, the underwriter of the offering, Sterling Foster & Co., Inc.
("Sterling Foster"), which is also a defendant, manipulated secondary
market trading in shares of the Company's common stock following the
offering and covered certain short positions it created through such
manipulation by purchasing shares of Company stock from persons who
owned such stock prior to the offering pursuant to an arrangement with
such persons that was not disclosed in the registration statement and
prospectus distributed in connection with the offering. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this
action.


FEN-PHEN: Interneuron Comments On Ct Rejection Of Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:IPIC) announced that the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has rejected a
proposed agreement among the Company and the Plaintiffs Management
Committee to settle all product liability litigation and claims against
the Company related to Redux(TM) (dexfenfluramine).

The Court found that the proposed settlement did not meet the
requirements for limited fund class actions, as recently described by
the Supreme Court in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.

"We are surprised by the Court's ruling and continue to believe that the
proposed Redux settlement meets the Supreme Court guidelines for limited
fund class action settlements," said Glenn L. Cooper, M.D., president
and chief executive officer of Interneuron. "But we are already
exploring other options, including an appeal of the Court's decision, as
well as other avenues for settlement.

"In the interim, we are continuing as planned with clinical, regulatory
and business development activities related to our advanced-stage
product development programs," said Dr. Cooper.

Interneuron Pharmaceuticals is engaged in the development and
commercialization of a portfolio of products and product candidates for
central nervous system, cardiovascular and other disorders, including
multiple compounds in late-stage clinical development.


FEN-PHEN: Judge Rejects Interneuron’s Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
A Federal district judge has rejected a bid by Interneuron
Pharmaceuticals for a $70 million nationwide settlement of lawsuits over
its Redux diet drug, company officials said.

Judge Louis Bechtle found here that Interneuron's proposed resolution of
claims by Redux users did not meet Supreme Court guidelines for such
settlements. Redux was sometimes used as a component of the fen-phen
diet drug combination.

Judge Bechtle's ruling comes as a lawyer for consumers continues talks
with officials of the American Home Products Corporation on a $4.4
billion settlement of all fen-phen claims against the company, which
sold the drug Pondimin as a fen-phen component. Judge Bechtle, who is
overseeing more than 300 suits filed by dieters who used the
now-discredited diet-drug combination, would also have to approve any
settlement involving American Home.

In June, the Supreme Court curtailed the use of a legal tool intended to
let companies limit their liability in class-action suits by rolling all
potential plaintiffs into a single settlement and barring individuals
from filing separate claims. Interneuron set up its $70 million plan to
resolve Redux users' claims as such a "limited fund" settlement.

Redux users contend that Interneuron and American Home, which marketed
the diet drug, knew that it caused heart problems for some users and
sold it anyway. (The New York Times 9-28-1999)


FIRST AMERICAN: Settlement Proposed For N.J. Suit Over Credit Reporting
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
About 27,000 people nationwide who applied for loans only to discover
they had bad credit ratings will be entitled to new evaluations under a
proposed agreement settling a class-action suit in Camden federal court.

The tentative agreement in the class-action Pakkala v. First American
CREDCO, 98-5251, was approved by U.S. Magistrate Joel Rosen on Sept. 14.
District Judge Stephen Orlofsky still must sign off on the deal, which
could happen as early as this week, says plaintiffs' attorney Philip
Fuoco.

The case arose after the plaintiffs had been either denied loans or told
they had problematic histories because of reports that San Diego-based
First American CREDCO submitted to lenders between 1996 and 1998.
CREDCO, a consumer reporting agency, does not do credit checks itself,
but combines information from the major reporting companies, Experian
(TRW), Trans Union and Equifax.

When their loan applications were rejected, the plaintiffs contacted
CREDCO to find out what was in their credit reports. CREDCO, in turn,
referred the consumers to one of the three companies that had done the
initial report.

In the suit, the plaintiffs charged that CREDCO's refusal to directly
follow up violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681i(a)(3), which requires credit reporting companies to tell consumers
what is in their reports and to give them an opportunity to lodge
disputes.

For consumers, this provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a
crucial safeguard, because it often gives people their only opportunity
to learn the source of negative information on their credit records. "If
you bought something from Sears, and Sears says you didn't pay, at least
you can go back to Sears with this," says Fuoco, who heads a firm in
Haddonfield. In the suit, filed in October 1998, Fuoco requested
injunctive relief for the plaintiffs and legal fees.

Independent of this suit, the Federal Trade Commission had also
challenged CREDCO's practice of referring consumer complaints to the
credit agency that originally gathered the information. CREDCO and the
FTC entered into a consent decree at the end of 1998 which has similar
terms to the proposed Pakkala settlement. Fuoco says he was not aware of
the FTC case when he filed his class action.

CREDCO has also agreed to pay $50,000 legal fees and is paying the named
plaintiffs, Donna and Ronald Pakkala of Valley Forge, Pa., a $3,000
incentive fee, for having agreed to represent the class.

CREDCO's attorney, Mark Melodia, a partner at the Princeton office of
Pittsburgh's Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, declined to comment since the
settlement has not yet been finalized. (New Jersey Law Journal
9-20-1999)


GANTOS INC: Settles For Shareholders Suit In Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------
On March 16, 1994, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, against certain current and former Officers and
Directors of the Company. The lawsuit claimed that the Defendants caused
the Company to issue statements containing material misstatements and
omissions. In addition, a proof of claim which mirrored the lawsuit, was
filed in the Bankruptcy Court on behalf of the Plaintiff class.

In January 1995, the Company, Defendants and the Plaintiff entered into
a settlement of the lawsuit. The settlement provided for the Company's
insurance company to pay $550,000 and the Company to issue $700,000
worth of new common stock on the POR effective date. The $700,000 worth
of new common stock, 168,000 shares, was issued effective March 31, 1995
as part of the Company's emergence from the Chapter 11 proceedings. The
Company's expense was included in the Credit for Facilities Closing and
Other in 1994.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Jewish Group Urges German Firms To Join Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Jewish Committee said it has written to 117 German
companies urging them to join a proposed industry fund to compensate
Nazi-era slave laborers.

The appeal includes major firms such as General Motors' German unit Adam
Opel AG, retailer Metro, telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom and
the Hochtief construction company, the group said.

Sixteen German industrial giants have signed up for the fund. But the
AJC said negotiations on how much money it should have will be sped up
if more companies agree to contribute.

Not all of the companies targeted by the appeal actually used and
profited from slave labor during World War II.

''Our philosophy is that this is a problem that needs to be solved by
German industry, regardless of whether the individual company was
involved'' said Deidre Berger of the AJC's Berlin office. ''It's a
common legacy. It's a question of the image of German business abroad.''

The group did not publish a full list of the companies it wrote to.

The German firms want to pay less than dlrs 1.7 billion into the fund,
far below the dlrs 20 billion that class-action lawyers reportedly have
demanded.

Also disputed is the number of eligible people, ranging from several
hundred thousand to 2.3 million.

The latest round of negotiations ended without agreement last month in
Bonn, Germany. Participants in the talks include the German and U.S.
governments, German industry, Jewish groups, attorneys for former slave
laborers and several East European countries. The talks are to resume
Oct. 6 in Washington. (AP Worldstream 9-27-1999)


LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Faces Securities Suit In Del. Over Merger Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 1999, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action
No.99-176) against Little Switzerland Inc/DE, certain of its former
officers and directors, Destination Retail Holdings Corporation (DRHC)
and Stephen G.E. Crane. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that DRHC's
financing commitment to purchase the Company's shares expired on April
30, 1998, before the Company's stockholders were scheduled to vote to
approve the merger between the Company and DRHC at the May 8, 1998
special meeting of stockholders. On August 5, 1999, the Company moved to
dismiss the complaint. This motion remains pending.

                           Merger Agreement

On February 4, 1998, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with DRHC and certain subsidiaries,
pursuant to which each stockholder of the Company would receive $8.10 in
cash for each share of its common stock held as of the effective date of
the merger. In addition, the holders of an option to purchase common
stock would receive, in cash, the difference between $8.10 and the
option's exercise price. The consummation of the merger was subject to
certain conditions, including, among other provisions, approval by the
Company's stockholders. The Company's stockholders approved the merger
at a Special Meeting of Stockholders on May 8, 1998. On June 9, 1998,
the Company announced it had terminated its merger agreement with DRHC
because of DRHC's inability to raise the financing necessary to complete
the merger.

On June 10, 1998, the Company filed a civil action (the "Complaint") in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil
Action No. 98- 315-SLR) against DRHC, Stephen G.E. Crane, DRHC's
controlling shareholder, Young Caribbean Jewelry Company Limited, a
Cayman Islands corporation, Alliance International Holdings Limited, a
Bahamian corporation, and CEI Distributors Inc., a British Virgin
Islands corporation, each an affiliate of DRHC. The Company alleges
breach of the Merger Agreement among the Company, DRHC and certain
affiliates of DRHC and also alleges claims of misrepresentation and
civil conspiracy, among other causes of action. The Company is seeking
monetary damages, including, without limitation, consequential damages
relating to harm to its business. On July 15, 1998, the defendants moved
to dismiss the Complaint on jurisdictional grounds. On March 31, 1999,
the court issued an order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss. On
May 21, 1999, the defendants filed their Answer, Affirmative Defenses,
Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint. The defendants allege
counterclaims against the Company and others for fraud, negligent
misrepresentations, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and breach of the Merger Agreement, unfair competition and
business libel, among others, primarily stemming from their allegations
that the Company was responsible for their failure to consummate the
Merger Agreement.

Historically, the Company was the exclusive authorized retailer for
Rolex watches on the islands on which the Company operates. Following
the execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February
4, 1998, with "DRHC" and certain of its affiliates, Rolex suspended
shipments of its products to the Company because Rolex indicated that it
did not believe it would be in its best interest to begin a business
relationship with DRHC. Following termination of the Merger Agreement,
on June 9, 1998, the Company made numerous attempts to rebuild its
business relationship with Rolex. However, on July 15, 1998, the Company
announced that it had learned that Rolex had decided not to resume
shipments of its watches to the Company for retail sale through Little
Switzerland's stores.


MEDICAL MANAGER: Will Defend Vigorously Securities Suit In Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Manager Corp. has received notice of a lawsuit which was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, among
other parties, on October 23, 1998 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit, styled George Ehlert,
et al. vs. Michael A. Singer, et al., purports to bring an action on
behalf of the plaintiffs and others similarly situated to recover
damages for alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
Florida laws arising out of the Company's issuance of allegedly
materially false and misleading statements concerning its business
operations, including the development and sale of its principal product,
during the class period. An amended complaint was served on March 2,
1999. The class period is alleged to be between April 23, 1998 and
August 5, 1998. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other purported class members
and reasonable costs and expenses. The Company believes that this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.


MEDICAL MANAGER: Settles For Suit Over Y2K Issues Of Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was brought against Medical Manager Corp.
alleging Year 2000 issues regarding The Medical Manager software in
versions prior to Version 9.0. Seven additional lawsuits were also
brought against the Company, each purporting to sue on behalf of those
similarly situated and raising essentially the same issues. In December
1998, the Company preliminarily entered into an agreement to settle the
class action lawsuit, as well as five of the seven other similar cases.
The settlement created a settlement class of all purchasers of Version 7
and 8 and upgrades to Version 9 of The Medical Manager software, and
released the Company from Year 2000 claims arising out of the sales of
these version of the Company's product. Under the terms of the
settlement, Version 8.12, containing the Company's upgraded Version of
8.11 software in addition to the Year 2000 patch, will be licensed
without a license fee to Version 7 and 8 users who participate in the
settlement. In addition, the settlement also provides that participating
users who purchased a Version 9 upgrade will have the option to obtain
one of four optional modules from the Company without a license fee, or
to elect to take a share of a settlement cash fund. The settlement
required the Company to make a cash payment of $1.455 million.


METLIFE INSURANCE: Hot Line Advises MA Former And Current Policyholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly announced a new toll-free hot line for
Massachusetts policyholders who may be eligible to join a proposed
class-action settlement by the MetLife Insurance Co. The New York-based
insurer has been accused of misleading practices when selling individual
life insurance policies and deferred annuities. The hot line
(1-800-994-3228) will help provide information about this case to former
and current consumers who bought MetLife policies or annuities between
1982 and 1997. Reilly said policyholders who qualify for this proposed
settlement must notify MetLife by Nov. 2. (The Boston Globe 9-27-1999)


MFN FINANCIAL: Sued Over A/C Irregularities Prior To Ch 11 Case In Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 1998, MFN Financial Corp. filed a voluntary petition (the
"Voluntary Case") in the United States Bankruptcy Court (the "Court")
for the Northern District of Illinois for relief under Chapter 11 of
title 11 of the United States Code. The Company's Second Amended Plan of
Reorganization (the "Plan" or "Plan of Reorganization") was confirmed by
order of the Court on March 10, 1999. The effective date of the Plan was
March 23, 1999. However, for financial reporting purposes, the Company
is using the close of business on March 31, 1999 as the effective date
of the Plan.

Prior to the filing of the Voluntary Case, the Company had been named as
a defendant in a variety of lawsuits ("Securities Fraud Claims")
generally arising from the Company's announcement on January 29, 1997
that it would restate its earnings for certain prior periods as a result
of the discovery of accounting irregularities.

The Plan provided that the Company transfer to a certain trust
established under the Plan (the "Liquidating Trust"), (i) $5 million in
cash, (ii) the Company's claims against KPMG Peat Marwick and (iii)
$250,000 in cash for fees and costs to be incurred in connection with
the Liquidating Trust. The Plan also provided for holders of Securities
Fraud Claims to receive a share of the beneficial interests in the
Liquidating Trust in complete settlement, satisfaction and discharge of
their claims. All of these costs were fully provided for as of March 31,
1999.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the events
giving rise to the accounting irregularities. Those events are also
under investigation by the United States Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The
Company is cooperating fully in these investigations.

It is the policy of MFN and its subsidiaries to vigorously defend
litigation, but MFN and (or) its subsidiaries have and may in the future
enter into settlements of claims where management deems appropriate.


PAYDAY LENDERS: Ill. Dept. Sued Over Rule Permitting Postdated Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Alderman Toni Preckwinkle of the Fourth Ward and The Illinois
Consumer Justice Council, Inc. filed suit against the Director of the
Illinois Department of Financial Institutions to invalidate a secret
Department of Financial Institutions rule that permits payday lenders to
accept postdated checks.

The complaint alleges that at some point during the last two years, the
Department determined that affirmative authorization by the Department
was necessary to permit payday lenders to take post-dated checks, and
that such authorization should be granted. However, instead of issuing a
rule in compliance with the rulemaking provisions of the Illinois
Administrative Procedure Act, so that interested members of the public
could comment on the desirability of allowing payday lenders to take
post dated checks, the Department acted secretly. The rule was not
published in the Illinois Register and plaintiffs had to file a Freedom
of Information Act request in order to get a copy of the document.

"Payday loans" are short term, very high interest rate loans. The loans
are typically two weeks in duration and carry annual percentage rates of
200% to over 2007.5%. The lender generally obtains a post-dated check as
a means of repayment. The loans are typically "rolled over" on multiple
occasions.

"Payday loans" are generally made to consumers facing financial
emergencies. Once a consumer obtains a "payday loan," he or she will
often be unable to pay it off except from the proceeds of additional
"payday loans." Often, the "payday loans" force the borrowers into
unnecessary bankruptcies.

Some of the exorbitant "payday loan" rates charged in Illinois are:
American Cash Advance 2007.5% American Loan Company 521% Americash 365%
Campus Cash Systems 469% Cash Store 521% Chartwell Financial 427% Checks
for Cash Credit Corp. 336%-365% Check Into Cash 573% Check-N-Go of
Illinois, Inc. 456%-521% Check Now 521% Checks-N-Advance 523% Devon
Financial Services 390%-520% E-Z Loan Company 520% Fast Cash Advance
365%-456% GFG Loan Company 365% Halsted Financial Services 500%+
Harrisburg Quick Cash 521.43% Illinois Title Lenders 216% Insta Cash,
Inc. 385% Instant Cash Advance (One Iron Ventures) 486%-912% McKenzie
Check Advance 535%-740% Millenium Title Lenders 521% Moolah Loan Company
360%-520% National Money Service 780% Nationwide Budget Finance 521%
Paycheck Advance Express, Inc. 456%-521% Pay Day Loans, Inc. 521.43%
Payday Check Advance, Inc., d/b/a Payday Express 521% Payday Loan Corp.
of Illinois 521% Payday Loan Express, Inc. 365% Payday Loan Store of
Calumet City, Inc. 684%-995% Payday Loan Store of Illinois, Inc. 695%
The Payday Loan Store -- Oak Lawn 695% Payday Today Loans LLC 521% Quik
Cash (Community Financial) 521% ShortTerm Loans 260%-342% Speedy Check
Cashers 521.43% Sun Cash 240%-520% Swansea Quick Cash 521.43% Tele-Cash
917%

Postdated checks are central to the operations of "payday lenders." If a
"payday loan" is not repaid, the lender presents the check for payment.
If the check is not paid, the lender threatens or attempts to enforce
the bad check statutes against the borrower. The bad check statutes do
not apply, but the average payday loan borrower is not aware of this, or
unwilling to risk prosecution or a civil penalty action. A few days ago,
the Cook County State's Attorney's Office filed suit against Nationwide
Budget Finance for illegal collection practices, including threatening
borrowers with arrest under the bad check statutes if loans were not
paid within 72 hours.

Alderman Preckwinkle's constituents are targets of "payday lenders." Her
Ward is adversely affected by the existence and conduct of "payday loan"
businesses. Plaintiffs contend that the rule is invalid, that payday
lenders have no right to take postdated checks, and that all postdated
checks taken by payday lenders are illegal and of no effect.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edelman, Combs & Latturner.
Plaintiffs' counsel, Daniel A. Edelman, stated that the Department of
Financial Institutions has admitted convening secret "task forces"
consisting entirely of industry people for the purpose of changing
Illinois law, and that this practice and the issuance of secret rules
was outrageous. The Department of Financial Institutions took action
that affects every citizen of Illinois without allowing for public
input, in flagrant disregard of the law.

Contact Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs and James 0. Latturner of
Edelman, Combs & Latturner, LaSalle Street, 18th floor, Chicago,
Illinois 60603 telephone 312-739-4200, fax, 312-419-0379


RANGE RESOURCES: Settles For Domain Stockholders Suit In Del Re Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 1998, the stockholders of Lomak Petroleum, Inc approved the
acquisition via merger of Domain Energy Corporation. As a result of the
Merger, Domain became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lomak.
Simultaneously, Lomak stockholders approved changing the Company's name
to Range Resources Corporation.

In May 1998, a Domain stockholder filed an action in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, alleging that the terms of the Merger were unfair to a
purported class of Domain stockholders and that the defendants (except
Range) violated their legal duties to the class in connection with the
Merger. Range is alleged to have aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the other defendants. The action
sought an injunction enjoining the Merger as well as a claim for money
damages. On September 3, 1998, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU"), which represents a settlement in principle of
the litigation. Under the terms of the MOU, appraisal rights (subject to
certain conditions) were offered to all holders of Domain common stock
(excluding the defendants and their affiliates). Domain also agreed to
pay any court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses of the plaintiffs'
counsel in an amount not to exceed $290,000. The settlement in principle
is subject to court approval and certain other conditions that have not
been satisfied.


RED CROSS: Ontario Approves Hep C Deal; Case Across Canada Near Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only B.C. hurdle stands between victims and $1.2 billion in
compensation. An Ontario Superior Court judge has accepted the $1.2
billion government-proposed compensation plan for those who contracted
hepatitis C from tainted blood between 1986 and 1990.

All that remains between thousands of victims and finally receiving
compensation is approval from a British Columbia court.

The package requires approval by courts in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec, the
three provinces where a class-action lawsuit was launched. It was
approved Tuesday by the Quebec Superior Court.

One of the victims, Thomas Anderson, was ecstatic when he heard the
news. ''Oh my God. This is fabulous,'' the 33-year-old Toronto man said.
''I've been through hell and back over this.''

The deal, which aims to end the $3.5 billion class-action suit brought
against federal and provincial governments and the Canadian Red Cross,
has the backing of provincial and territorial governments and the
support of the majority of hemophiliacs and other hepatitis C sufferers.

''The victims of the blood tragedy in Canada cannot be made whole by
this settlement. No one can undo what has been done,'' Superior Court
Judge Warren Winkler wrote in his judgment. ''Thus, the settlement must
be reviewed from the standpoint of its fairness, reasonableness and
whether it is in the best interests of the class as a whole.'' 'No one
can undo what has been done.'

In approving the settlement, with several modifications, Superior Court
Judge Warren Winkler decided that it was in the best interests of the
group. ''I'm delighted. This is a win for the class members,'' said
Harvey Strosberg, lead counsel for the group. Winkler's modifications
are all in areas about which he expressed concern during hearings last
month. In court he said the plan looked too top heavy, with more money
going to administration than was necessary.

In his judgment he wrote that the administration was necessary to ensure
''efficient access to the plan benefits.'' He went on to write, ''the
courts, in their supervisory role, will be vigilant in ensuring that the
best interests of the class will be the predominant criterion.'' In
response to his earlier concerns that the plan might not be sufficiently
funded - according to one set of figures it's $58 million underfunded -
he wrote: ''I find on the evidence before me, that the fund is
sufficient to provide the benefits.''

In the interests of fairness, a sub-class must be created for the
victims of the blood disorder thalassemia to take into account their
special circumstances in the same way as was done for hemophiliacs, he
wrote. ''We've made a huge step forward. It's important to have
suggestions. . . . it can only serve to help everyone involved,'' said
Strosberg, adding the modifications can be dealt with in further
hearings with Winkler. 'We've made a huge step forward.'

Pending approval in B.C., Harvey Strosberg, lawyer for tainted blood
victims believes the fund will be in a position to start approving
applications and issuing cheques early in the new year.

If this package isn't accepted by B.C., all the parties will have to
start over and it will be many more years before the victims receive any
compensation.

That's a serious concern for Anderson, who contracted hepatitis C from a
blood transfusion in 1988. He already has permanent liver damage from
the disease. He thinks he's been waiting long enough and, like thousands
of others, he'd like to get some money while he's still healthy enough
to enjoy it.

The deal has six levels of compensation that take into account the
progressive nature of hepatitis C. Level 1 compensation covers people
who have the hepatitis C antibody in their blood and can prove they
received it through tainted blood products taken between 1986 and 1990.

They would receive a one-time payment of $10,000 plus money to cover
uninsured medication and expenses incurred while seeking medical
treatment and establishing a compensation claim. Compensation increases
over the next five levels. With full compensation at each level, a
person could receive up to $1 million, Strosberg said.

Family members of people who died from hepatitis C contracted between
1986 and 1990 are entitled to between $50,000 and $120,000.

Compensation money is tax-free, adding an additional $357 million to the
package's worth. (The Toronto Star 9-23-1999)


RITE AID: Donovan Miller Files Suit In Phil. Over Surcharge On Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan Miller, LLC announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
against Rite Aid Corporation on behalf of consumers who purchased
prescription drugs that were not covered by a prescription insurance
plan and who were charged an additional amount by Rite Aid above the
listed price at any time during the period of September 27, 1993 through
the present.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Rite Aid, in a form
of two-price scheme, told pharmacists to increase the retail prices of
prescription drugs sold to uninsured pharmacy patients, especially those
pharmacy patients who were purchasing "emergency-type" drugs or drugs
designed to remedy an acute condition because such persons would be
unlikely to shop for the best price on antibiotics or pain medication.
Rite Aid pharmacists failed to inform the patients they were being
charged more than the listed price for their drugs or that computer
record setup surcharges were being imposed. The complaint alleges that
Rite Aid violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 P.S. 201-1 et seq., by, among other things, failing
to disclose its surcharge practices and thereby advertising goods or
services with intent not to sell them as advertised.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Donovan Miller, LLC and Burt
& Pucillo, LLP. Contact Donovan Miller, LLC, Philadelphia
Ann Miller, 215/732-6020 Fax: 215/732-8060 mdonovan@dmlaw.com
http://www.dmlaw.comTICKERS: NYSE:RAD PSE:RAD


WAR VICTIMS: Allied PoWs Appeal In Tokyo For Compensation From Japan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for thousands of Allied prisoners of war launched an appeal to
get compensation for suffering endured at the hands of Japanese troops
in World War II.

The first day of oral hearings was held in the Appellate Court in Tokyo
on behalf of 20,000 British, American, Australian and New Zealand
veterans and civilian internees.

They were appealing a decision last November to refuse demands for total
compensation of more than 440 million dollars. The Tokyo court case was
brought by seven men on behalf of the thousands of Allied servicemen.

At the end of the four-year case, Judge Shigeki Inoue of the Tokyo
District Court had ruled that under international law individuals could
not make claims for compensation against Japan.

Martyn Day, a British lawyer representing the servicemen, said there had
been a "real outpouring of anger" in Britain against the Japanese
court's decision. "The clouds that have already started to gather are
intenstifying over Japan," he told a news conference. Some of the
servicemen were also considering joining other class actions being
mounted against Japan's war-time use of slave labour, he said. They were
also pressuring the British government to make a claim on their behalf.
"I am confident that in light of today's hearing and the appeal we are
making that within a short while we will finally reach the resolution
that we so desperately need," Day said.

More than half the thousands of veterans seeking compensation are
British. Arthur Titherington, a 77-year-old British veteran who was
forced to work in a gold mine for three years as a prisoner of war, said
the previous court decision was unacceptable. "The decision announced in
the District Court in Tokyo in November of last year, taking no more
than 20 seconds, took no account of any of the evidence I gave of the
inhuman treatment of prisoners of the Japanese military," he said in a
statement to the court, a copy of which was released at the news
conference. "For me to appear here and relate once again a chronicle of
painful memories, to go through the anguish of fine detail for the third
time, is beyond the bounds of reasonableness." "Examples of the ill
treatment, the torture, the executions and a re-telling of the
considerable and unnecessary daths are really not needed in this
account. The truth has been chronicled in many forms -- it is there for
all to see."

Titherington defended the sum being demanded by former prisoners of war.
"Try living for three and a half years, completely defenceless, day
after day after day knowing that any moment one of these idiots with a
rifle and bayonet could put an end to your life," he told the news
conference.

Some 50,000 British servicemen and 20,000 civilians were interned in
labour camps during World War II, where they were tortured, starved and
used as slaves on projects such as the Burma-Siam railway, on which 462
men died for every mile built.

But the Tokyo District Court had said it could not take into
consideration the harrowing descriptions of brutality in labour camps
read by the prisoners of war during the case.

In 1951, under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan paid 120 dollars in
compensation to military internees and 80 dollars to civilians.
(Agence France Presse 9-27-1999)


* Carolinas Roll Call Report Syndicate
--------------------------------------
Here are the votes of area senators and representatives on major
legislation in Congress last week.

                                 House

Milk prices: By a 285-140 vote, the House passed legislation (HR 1402)
blocking a Department of Agriculture plan to put federal milk policy on
a more free-market basis. The bill was backed by dairy farmers in
eastern and southern states and opposed by food processing companies,
consumer groups and farmers in the upper Midwest. It shelves a planned
USDA loosening of regulations set 62 years ago to protect dairy incomes
and assure ample supplies. In part, it continues the existing pricing
structure for milk marketing orders and retains price supports until at
least 2001.

A yes vote was to keep existing federal rules for pricing milk.

North Carolina: Voting yes: Eva Clayton (D), Bob Etheridge (D), Walter
Jones Jr. (R), David Price (D), Richard Burr (R), Mike McIntyre (D),
Robin Hayes (R), Sue Myrick (R), Cass Ballenger (R), Charles Taylor (R),
Mel Watt (D).

Voting no: None.

Not voting: Howard Coble (R).

South Carolina: Voting yes: Floyd Spence (R), Lindsey Graham (R), Jim
DeMint (R), John Spratt (D), Jim Clyburn (D).

Voting no: Mark Sanford (R).

Not voting: None.

Class actions: Voting 222-207, the House passed a bill (HR 1875)
designed to shift most future class-action suits from state to federal
courts. U.S. judges now hear these suits only under strict diversity
rules. This bill enables them to gain jurisdiction when one plaintiff
and one defendant are from different states.

It was backed by business groups, which argue that existing procedures
overwhelmingly favor plaintiffs' lawyers, enabling them to "forum shop"
for a friendly state court. But the American Trial Lawyers Association
says the bill would make it more difficult for consumers to receive
damage awards from corporations in areas such as health, safety and
environmental litigation.

A yes vote was to federalize most class-action suits.

North Carolina: Voting yes: Jones, Burr, Hayes, Myrick, Ballenger,
Taylor.

Voting no: Clayton, Etheridge, Price, McIntyre, Watt.

Not voting: Coble.

South Carolina: Voting yes: Sanford, Spence, DeMint.

Voting no: Graham, Spratt, Clyburn.

Not voting: None.

Gun suits: By a 152-277 vote, the House rejected an amendment that
sought to exempt suits against gun and ammunition manufacturers from a
bill (HR 1875, above) that shifts most class-action suits to federal
courts.

A yes vote was to keep existing class-action rules for gun suits.

North Carolina: Voting yes: Clayton, Price.

Voting no: Etheridge, Jones, Burr, McIntyre, Hayes, Myrick, Ballenger,
Taylor, Watt.

Not voting: Coble.

South Carolina: Voting yes: Clyburn.

Voting no: Sanford, Spence, DeMint, Graham, Spratt.

Not voting: None.

Tobacco suits: Voting 162-266, the House rejected an amendment to exempt
cases against tobacco companies from a bill (HR 1875, above) that would
give federal courts jurisdiction over most future class-action suits.

A yes vote was to retain state courts as the main venue for class
actions against tobacco firms.

North Carolina: Voting yes: None.

Voting no: Clayton, Etheridge, Jones, Price, Burr, McIntyre, Hayes,
Myrick, Ballenger, Taylor, Watt.

Not voting: Coble.

South Carolina: Voting yes: None.

Voting no: Sanford, Spence, Graham, DeMint, Spratt, Clyburn.

Not voting: None.

                                  Senate

AmeriCorps: Voting 61-38, the Senate tabled (killed) an amendment to HR
2084 to terminate the AmeriCorps program by transferring its $225
million budget for fiscal 2000 to veterans' health programs. AmeriCorps
members engage in one year of community service in return for federal
education aid.

A yes vote was to keep AmeriCorps in operation.

North Carolina: Jesse Helms (R) voted no. John Edwards (D) voted yes.

South Carolina: Strom Thurmond (R) voted no. Ernest Hollings (D) voted
yes.

                             WANT TO WRITE?

Letters to senators may be addressed to the U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
20510. For members of the House of Representatives, the ZIP code is
20515. If you would like to call representatives and senators, the
number for the Capitol Hill switchboard is (202) 224-3121. (The
Charlotte Observer 9-27-1999)


                               *********


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  * * *