CAR_Public/991029.MBX                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, October 29, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 188

                                 Headlines

ABBOTT LAB: Brings In Executive From Durham; Faces Suit Re FDA Probe
ABBOTT LAB: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit In Illinois
ABBOTT LAB: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In Illinois
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit In Ohio
AMERICAN GENERAL: Sued In Florida Over Burial Life Insurance Policies

ANAHEIM HILLS: Suits Over CA Santiago Disaster All Settled After 6 Yrs
AUTO INSURANCE: Survey In CA Finds 40% Of Bills Are Fraudulent
AVADO BRANDS: Ap Ct Ruling May Make It Tough To Prove Securities Fraud
CLOROX COMPANY: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In California
ECHEVARRIA, MCCALLA: Il Ct Dismisses FDCPA Suit; Leasor Is Not A Debtor

ED TESTING: Settles CA Suit; Will Improve Materials For Test To Blind
HI/FN INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit In California
INFORMATION ANALYSIS: Virginia Ct Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MATTEL INC: Harvey Greenfield Files Securities Suit In California
NJ POLICE: Judge Orders Broad Discovery on Racial Profiling On Turnpike

NORMAN STANLEY: Inspection On Rental Properties In Wake To End Lawsuit
NY CITY: Sued Over Housing Conditions For Homeless With Aids
TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT Chairman Says Industry Will Win Appeal In Fla.
TOBACCO LITIGATION: New York To Issue Tobacco Bonds
TOBACCO LITIGATION: NY Consumer Fraud Case Can't Be Part Of Class Suit

UNISYS: Berger & Montague File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
UNISYS: Spector & Roseman File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit In Maine

                              **********

ABBOTT LAB: Brings In Executive From Durham; Faces Suit Re FDA Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories has hired another outsider to help improve its
regulatory dealings with the Food and Drug Administration, as it comes
under an intensifying attack from shareholders.

Abbott Laboratories was sued Wednesday on behalf of stockholders who say
the company didn't promptly disclose information about an FDA
investigation into the company's diagnostics division. It's the second
class action sought against Abbott since the medical-products company
announced its dispute with the FDA last month.

Abbott and the FDA are squabbling over allegations that the company is
using various incorrect procedures to make medical-test kits at an
Abbott plant near headquarters in North Chicago.

Lawyers from Schiffrin & Barroway of Bala Cynwyd, Pa., said they filed
the suit in U.S. District Court in Chicago on behalf of all purchasers
of Abbott stock from March 17 through Sept. 29.

Abbott wouldn't comment on the suit, but said it continues to work with
the FDA to resolve the regulatory wrangle.

Meantime, Abbott said it has hired Lawrence Roebel as vice president for
regulatory affairs and research quality assurance in its pharmaceutical
products division.

Abbott traditionally promotes from within its management ranks for
corporate level positions. But Roebel, who begins his new duties Monday,
is the second executive hired from Durham, N.C.-based Quintiles Inc., a
research and consulting firm known for its specialty in developing
products to meet FDA standards. Earlier this month, Abbott hired Michael
Beatrice as vice president of corporate regulatory and quality science
from Quintiles.

Although the recent FDA probe focuses on Abbott's diagnostics division,
where Roebel would not likely be involved, an earlier FDA probe of
Abbott involved pharmaceutical Abbokinase, a clot-buster drug Abbott has
been unable to ship as a result of the continuing investigation.
The Abbokinase probe centers in part on testing of the product as well
as on testing of the donors of kidney cells used to make Abbokinase.
(Chicago Tribune 10-28-1999)


ABBOTT LAB: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit In Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued by the law firm of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Abbott Laboratories
(NYSE: ABT) from March 17, 1999 through September 29, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Abbott and certain of its officers and directors
with failing to disclose material information concerning the fact that
Abbott was seriously out of compliance with government quality assurance
regulations at its North Chicago Diagnostic Products Division plant.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later
than December 19, 1999, 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. Plaintiff is represented by
the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP (Andrew L. Barroway, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com TICKERS: NYSE:ABT


ABBOTT LAB: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released by the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who bought Abbott
Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) stock between March 17, 1999 and September 29,
1999.

The lawsuit charges Abbott and several of its top officers with
violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed to
reveal problems then known to them concerning the Company's compliance
with Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations at one of its
plants. The truth regarding problems at this plant was not revealed
until September 29, 1999, even though the Company had received a warning
letter from the FDA regarding violations at the plant on March 17, 1999.
Once the market learned of these violations the Company's stock price
plunged dramatically.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP. If you purchased Abbott stock during the Class
Period, you have until December 20, 1999 to participate in the case and
ask the Court to appoint you as one of the lead plaintiffs for the
Class. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal
requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions,
please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Michael Miske, Gregory Nespole, Esq., Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. or
Shane T. Rowley, Esq.), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or
whafh@aol.com or visit our website at http://www.whafh.comAll e-mail
correspondence should make reference to Abbott. TICKERS: NYSE:ABT


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit In Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued by the law firm of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
(NYSE:ANF) from October 8, 1999 through October 13, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Abercrombie of improperly tipping off an analyst
at the brokerage firm of Lazard Freres about the Company's sluggish
third quarter growth. This information was made available to Lazard
Freres' sales force so that Lazard Freres' preferred customers were able
to trade on this inside information. The truth was not disclosed to the
investing public until October 13, 1999. Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, who has significant experience and expertise
prosecuting class actions on behalf of investors and shareholders.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later
than December 18, 1999, 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. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP (Andrew L. Barroway, Esq.) toll free at 888/299-7706 or
610/667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com TICKERS: NYSE:ANF


AMERICAN GENERAL: Sued In Florida Over Burial Life Insurance Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in Florida on behalf of millions
of policyholders throughout the country against American General Life &
Accident Insurance Company alleging unconscionable insurance practices
in the sale of burial life insurance policies.

The lawsuit was filed in Gainesville, Florida, on October 27, 1999. The
complaint alleges that for many decades American General Life & Accident
Insurance Company has engaged in a nationwide scheme which takes
advantage of the poor and minorities in the sale of burial life
insurance.

Burial life insurance policies, also commonly known as industrial life
insurance policies, are life insurance policies with death benefits
typically of $1,000 or less and weekly premium payments often less than
one dollar. American General Life & Accident Insurance Company itself,
through life insurance companies it has acquired, such as Independent
Life and Accident Insurance, targeted the poor and minorities for the
sale of burial life insurance. Burial policies do not build value and
often build little or no cash surrender value. The suit alleges that
even though the premium payments on burial policies appear small,
millions of poor and minority policyholders have paid substantially more
in premiums than the death benefits provided by the policies. Because
the policies contain little or no cash surrender value, policyholders
stand to lose everything paid into the policies if they discontinue
paying premiums even though they have already substantially overpaid for
the policies.

Burial policies have been widely sold to the economically disadvantaged
by agents of the life insurance company who would routinely make
personal visits to their policyholders to collect premium payments and
convince policyholders to purchase additional insurance products. The
suit alleges that in some instances policyholders were sold as many as
twenty burial policies even where it was not in the policyholder's best
interest to purchase additional burial insurance. The suit also alleges
that even though other types of life insurance were available which were
better and less expensive for the policyholders, American General Life &
Accident Insurance Company agents sold the burial policies solely to
increase their own commissions and the company profits.

The class action plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit are Queen Crawford,
Bessie Jones and John A. And Earther Strong.

Christa L. Collins, an attorney with the Tampa law firm of James, Hoyer,
Newcomer, Forizs & Smiljanich, P.A., stated: "American General Life &
Accident Insurance Company has taken financial advantage of those who
can least afford it." State of Florida Insurance Commissioner, Bill
Nelson conducted hearings in the Spring of 1999 on burial life insurance
and supported legislation which would have required burial insurance
companies to inform their policyholders of the total amount they have
paid in premiums for burial life policies. This legislation was
vigorously opposed by the insurance industry and was defeated in the
Florida legislature. On Monday, October 25, 1999, Commissioner Nelson
launched an extensive investigation into five burial life insurance
companies, including American General Life & Accident Company. He also
announced that he will again propose legislation to include barring new
sales of burial policies. Contact: Christa L. Collins of James, Hoyer,
Newcomer, Forizs & Smiljanich, P.A., 813-286-4100 or
CollinsChrista@hotmail.com


ANAHEIM HILLS: Suits Over CA Santiago Disaster All Settled After 6 Yrs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Years And $19 Million Later, Last Of Suits By Anaheim Hills
Residents Over Santiago Disaster Are Resolved.

Six years after a landslide forced dozens of families to flee their
Anaheim Hills dream homes, city officials and others have settled the
last in the resulting series of lawsuits, paying out more than $ 19
million in all in the aftermath of the disaster.

Nearly 250 families sued Anaheim and others involved with the housing
development endangered by the January 1993 Santiago landslide. The case
was finally closed earlier this month when the last plaintiff agreed to
settle for $ 27,250, concluding one of the lengthiest landslide cases in
Orange County, said attorney Michael Rubin, who represented the city.

Many residents were just glad to have it over with. "I don't know if
this is something to be joyful about. I mean, it's settled. It's over,"
said Ed Muratori, who spent about $ 15,000 to repair his home following
the landslide. "We sued for much more money than what we got, but this
thing was just going on for too long. At some point in time, you get
tired."

Amid torrential rains that prompted much of Southern California to be
declared a disaster area, city officials in January 1993 learned that
the already saturated Anaheim Hills bluff was sliding downward at a rate
of about an inch a day. Fearing that the slide might cause the entire
hillside to collapse, the city evacuated 46 families in the hardest-hit
areas.

The hillside didn't topple, but the slide tore at the foundation of many
homes that lined Avenida de Santiago, Georgetown Circle and other nearby
residential streets, leaving cracks several inches wide through living
rooms and fissures that divided driveways and swimming pools. Streets
and sidewalks buckled. Property values, for some homes originally
assessed upward of $ 1 million, plummeted.

About a quarter of the residents eventually sold their homes at a loss
of hundreds of thousands of dollars, said William E. Stoner, whose law
firm represented most of the homeowners. "We're satisfied with the
settlement," Stoner said, adding that his clients "are happy to have the
ordeal behind them, and no longer have to deal with the city of
Anaheim."

In their lawsuit, residents claimed that developers never should have
been allowed to build on land they knew to be susceptible to landslides.
Brittle plastic pipes, which homeowners contend cracked and leaked,
contributing to the landslide, also should not have been used in
construction, according to the lawsuit.

City officials denied they were aware of the slide risk, and argued that
they spent millions of dollars to correct the problem as soon as it was
detected, including installing pumps to drain the hillside. Facing
mounting legal action, Anaheim authorities in 1995 filed a countersuit,
charging that residents contributed to the slide by over-watering the
landscape and failing to repair leaky swimming pools. The countersuit
was later withdrawn. Rubin, the city's attorney, insists the city did
all it could, acting "in a remarkably responsive way to the situation,"
he said.

The legal dispute hinged on which of the two landslide boundaries
submitted to the court would be used to determine damages.

The city claimed that only 36 homes were immediately within the
landslide zone, while attorneys for the homeowners contended about 250
homes were affected. The suits dragged on for years until a judge
appointed an independent engineering geologist, whose final analysis was
similar to the city's assessment, said Rubin, the city's attorney.
"We reached a conceptual settlement, I believe, within a week of the
geology expert's testimony," Rubin said.

The agreed-upon settlement topped $ 19 million, officials said. The
city's insurers agreed to pay $ 10 million toward the final settlement,
with two plastic-pipe manufacturers contributing another $ 3.75 million.
The rest of the amount will come from the plaintiffs' insurers and other
cross-defendants, Rubin said.

Of the settlement, $ 3.5 million was set aside to maintain a water
pumping system that the city installed to stabilize the hillside. The
system includes dozens of vertical wells pumping water from 50 to 300
feet underground, draining the hillside.

"There has been no movement in that landslide since March of 1993. We
have monitoring devices . . . to guarantee that it won't move," said
Natalie Meeks, city engineer in charge of the wells at the time.

But others aren't so sure. Jerry Tatarian, 30, said he bought a house on
Avenida de Santiago after hiring engineering experts who determined that
the ground was stable. He then spent about $ 60,000 to repair the
foundation, and poured tens of thousands of dollars more into fixing
minor problems including various cracks. But new cracks have since
appeared on his patio and in his swimming pool. "We all suffered because
of the landslide . . . and we're still suffering," Tatarian said. While
he fears that living in Anaheim Hills will continue to be a constant
battle against the forces of nature, Tatarian added that for the most
part, it's worth it. "It's quiet. It's far away from the city," he said.

In January 1993, a 23-acre landslide forced Anaheim city officials to
evacuate 46 families from their hilltop homes. Lawsuits involving about
250 families soon followed and dragged on for years. The last case from
that disaster was finally settled and dismissed this month. (Los Angeles
Times 10-28-1999)


AUTO INSURANCE: Survey In CA Finds 40% Of Bills Are Fraudulent
--------------------------------------------------------------
California consumers are paying $5 billion a year for auto-body repairs
that are substandard, dangerously unstable or never done, the director
of the state's Bureau of Automotive Repairs said Wednesday.

In recent undercover stings of auto-body repair shops, the consumer
advocacy office found 40 percent of bills were fraudulent, director
Allen Wood said at a Senate Insurance Committee hearing.

Consumer advocates, insurance representatives and auto-body repair shop
owners testified that the problem is costing the public money and could
compromise safety.

Repair shop owner Rocko Avellini of Hawaiian Gardens operates a consumer
advocacy service that checks repairs. "We have done more than 400 wreck
checks and haven't seen one repair done correctly," he said.

If the finish on the car is within reason, poor or even dangerous
repairs are often undetectable to the owner, Wood said. He used a 1993
Mercedes 500SL parked on a flatbed truck near the State Capitol to
illustrate his point. "This car is really not safe to be on the road.
But if you just got this car back from the repair shop, you'd have no
idea," he said. The car's owner drove the car for weeks, unaware of
structural problems resulting from a bad repair job, Wood said.

Repairs on the $85,000 sports car totaled over $18,000, but
investigators found that $7,800 of the bill was for parts never
installed and labor that was never done. The owner of that repair shop
is being prosecuted, he said.

During the investigation, the bureau found that as the repair bills
increased, the percentage of the bill that was fraudulent also
increased. "The more damage there is, the more room there is to hide
things," Wood said.

Lawmakers will also study agreements that insurance companies make with
repair shops requiring flat rates for services, said Sen. Jackie Speier,
D-Daly City.

Those direct repair provider contracts are similar to health maintenance
organizations contracts with doctors, said Speier, who is the chairwoman
of the insurance committee. Both are ways the insurance companies save
money, she said. In those agreements, insurance agencies can negotiate
for a reduced hourly rate or tell repair shops to use after-market
parts, as seen in a recent class-action lawsuit that resulted in a $1.2
billion verdict against State Farm Insurance Co.

Speier's committee will investigate the how those contracts affect the
cost and quality of auto-body repairs and how the state can help crack
down on fraud in the industry. She expects to issue the findings of the
Insurance Committee's investigation in December. (Ventura County Star
(Ventura County, Ca.) 10-28-1999)


AVADO BRANDS: Ap Ct Ruling May Make It Tough To Prove Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court ruling on a case involving a Madison restaurant chain
operator could make it tougher for shareholders to prove securities
fraud cases against company management.

Plaintiffs must prove that corporations "consciously misbehaved" or were
"severely reckless" in managing the company for the actions to be
considered fraudulent the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling
on a shareholders lawsuit against Avado Brands Inc. (Nasdaq: AVDO).

The appeals court sent the case back to U.S. District Court. Avado owns
the restaurant chains Hops Restaurant, Bar and Brewery, McCormick &
Schmick's and Don Pablo's Mexican Kitchen.

Shareholders accused Avado of selling stock at inflated prices. The
lawsuit charged that management knew about operational problems and
profited when the problems finally were revealed and the stock price
dropped.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants claim the ruling is in their
favor, and both claim to be looking out for the best interests of
shareholders. "The approach the 11th Circuit has taken is most
beneficial to shareholders because only those suits that really pass
muster can go on and be allowed to consume corporate resources," said
Oscar Persons, Avado's defense lawyer from Alston & Bird LLP.

David Bain, of Chitwood & Harley, who represented the plaintiffs, also
said the recent ruling is good for shareholders. "The decision provides
shareholders with protection against false and misleading statements by
corporate defendants," said Bain.

The ruling states that companies could be found guilty of fraud if they
consciously deceive shareholders, Bain said. The 11th Circuit ruling
specifies that company management must be " severely reckless," as
opposed to "merely reckless," which is the standard other circuit courts
have adopted.

Persons said the ruling strengthens the Private Securities Reform Act of
1995, which aimed to reduce the number of frivolous securities fraud
cases. Congress passed the law after a record-setting 227 class-action
securities fraud lawsuits were filed in 1994.

"The 11th Circuit has aligned itself with some other circuits that want
to put some teeth into the Reform Act," Persons said. The number of
shareholder lawsuits temporarily declined in 1995 and 1996 after the
Reform Act passed. But the number of such suits rose again in 1997, and
in 1998 the number of class-action securities fraud lawsuits reached a
new high - 235 cases -surpassing the record set in 1994, according to
the Stanford Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

"Securities litigation is giving pennies to stockholders and millions to
plaintiffs' lawyers, and historically that's why Congress passed the
Reform Act," Persons said.

The 11th Circuit recently issued another ruling defending the Reform Act
in the case of Harris vs. Ibax. The court said cautionary language
protects companies from lawsuits when they fail to meet the goals
outlined in their forward-looking statements.

The suit against Avado was originally filed against Apple South, which
changed its name to Avado when it sold its Applebee's Neighborhood Grill
and Bar franchises. (Atlanta Business Chronicle 10-8-1999)


CLOROX COMPANY: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following was announced October 27, 1999 by Stull, Stull & Brody:

A class action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders of The Clorox
Company (NYSE: CLX) who purchased Clorox stock between October 19, 1998
and August 11, 1999, inclusive. Clorox sells a variety of household
products, including dressings and sauces, charcoal, automobile waxes,
liquid bleach, cleaning products, cleaners, and cat litter. The
defendants include: Clorox, First Brands Corporation, G. Craig Sullivan,
Gerald E. Johnston, Karen M. Rose, William V. Stephenson, Thomas H.
Rowland and Donald A. Desantis.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action
arises from damages incurred by the Class as a result of a scheme and
common course of conduct by defendants which operated as a fraud and
deceit on the Class during the Class Period. Defendants' scheme included
rendering false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning
the present and future financial condition and business prospects of the
Company, as well as the financial benefits that would enure to Clorox
and its shareholders.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, no later than
sixty days from October 6, 1999 move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff,
however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice, please
contact plaintiffs' counsel Timothy J. Burke at 888-388-4605 or via
e-mail at info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's web site at
http://www.secfraud.comTICKERS: NYSE: CLX


ECHEVARRIA, MCCALLA: Il Ct Dismisses FDCPA Suit; Leasor Is Not A Debtor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who rent their mortgaged residences may lose their consumer
status for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act purposes if they rent to
non-family members, remove their personal property and have no
expectations of living in the home in the future. Miller v. Echevarria,
McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier, et al., No. 98 C 5563 (N.D. Ill.
8/13/99).

Kevin Miller refinanced his Atlanta home in 1993. He lived in that
residence until 1995 when he moved to Chicago, taking his personal
property with him. In his absence, Miller rented the Atlanta property
for 1,950 per month to non-family members.

In September 1997, the law firm of McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb,
Nichols & Clark LLC mailed Miller a collection letter on behalf of Chase
Manhattan Mortgage Corp. The dunning letter attempted to collect the
unpaid balance of the mortgage loan on the Atlanta property.

Miller, in turn, filed a class action under Section 1692 of the FDCPA.
When Miller moved for summary judgment against the law firm, the firm
countered with its own motion for summary judgment. The firm contended
that the loan was not a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA because
Miller used the Atlanta residence primarily for commercial purposes.

In his motion for summary judgment, Miller argued that the determination
of whether a loan is a debt under the FDCPA is appropriately made at the
time of the original transaction. He cited Garner v. Kansas, 1999 WL
262100 (E.D. La. 1999), to support his position. According to Miller, he
intended to use the Atlanta property as his residence and for consumer
purposes at the time he obtained the refinancing and this made his loan
consumer in nature. He additionally pointed out to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois that he lived in the home
for several years before moving to Chicago.

Before ruling on the motion, the District Court reviewed other decisions
and concluded that in general, courts examine the loan transaction as a
whole when deciding if it is for consumer or commercial purposes. Judge
Elaine Bucklo then opined that Miller's reliance on Garner was misplaced
because in Garner the plaintiff only rented his property during the
periods of time he was is the military, law school and completing a
judicial clerkship. Furthermore, the plaintiff in Garner lived in the
home at the time of the FDCPA action.

Additionally, the court reviewed Truth in Lending Act cases that set
forth factors to be used in determining if a transaction was a consumer
credit transaction. These factors included whether the consumer had
resided in the home for a long period of time, whether he had visited
the home periodically, whether he expected to reside in the home in the
future, whether the leasee was merely performing a custodial role,
whether the consumer stored property at the residence and whether the
leasee was related to the consumer.

Using these criteria, the District Court found that Miller did not
demonstrate "the existence of factual circumstances to show consumer
rather than commercial use in the absence of contemporaneous occupancy."
Thus, the court ruled the loan was not a debt within the meaning of the
FDCPA.

The court granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment and denied
Miller's motion for summary judgment and class certification. Because
Miller was not within the class of people with non-business debts, the
District Court ruled he was an inadequate class representative.
(Consumer Financial Services Law Report 10-5-1999)


ED TESTING: Settles CA Suit; Will Improve Materials For Test To Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A California class action lawsuit alleging that a test administrator
failed to provide adequate course materials to blind test takers has
been settled. Under the terms of the agreement, the testing service will
improve the availability of course materials in Braille and other
alternative formats.

An amended complaint in the case of Sutton v. Educational Testing
Services was filed in January of this year by Joshua Konecky of
Disability Rights Advocates in Oakland, Calif., on behalf of plaintiffs
Marc Sutton and California Council of the Blind. Sutton is a blind
individual who needed to take the Graduate Records Exam in order to
pursue his goal of attending graduate school in physical therapy, and
the CCB is an advocacy organization that is comprised of Californians
with blindness and visual impairments.

The amended complaint charged that Educational Testing Services provided
fewer course materials, such as practice tests and explanations, in
Braille format than in print format. It also claimed that the quality of
the Braille materials was inferior, and that ETS imposed "unnecessary
and burdensome restrictions on the use of Braille materials ... ." In
particular, it alleged that Sutton asked ETS to provide him with course
materials for the GRE on several occasions. According to the complaint,
ETS told Sutton that the only course materials available in Braille were
a practice GRE general test containing sample questions, three general
tests without explanations, one general test with explanations and a
math review. By contrast, it was alleged, a print that was available
only in print offered six actual GRE general tests, an additional
complete test with explanations, a math review and a section that
included test-taking strategies. The print course materials were better
organized and formatted than the Braille versions, the complaint said,
and ETS also required a 50 deposit plus shipping and handling for each
Braille item ordered.

In addition, the complaint said, ETS limited the use of Braille
materials and required that they be returned within 60 days. Moreover,
it claimed, ETS did not update the Braille materials as frequently as it
updated the print materials.

The amended complaint, which was presented as a class action, alleged
violations of the ADA and Section 504 as well as state law. In addition,
it raised several state-law claims. (Disability Compliance Bulletin
10-11-1999)


HI/FN INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit In California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Kirby McInerney &
Squire, LLP:

A class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of Hi/fn Inc. (NASDAQ: HIFN) common stock between July 26,
1999 and October 7, 1999.

The action asserts a claim against Hi/fn and certain of its officers for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by reason of material misrepresentations and omissions
during the Class Period. Investors were shocked by Hi/fn's announcement
on October 7, 1999 that orders had been cut by the Company's two largest
customers. This "bombshell" sent Hi/fn's stock price careening from $
104.75 per share to $ 37.75 in just 2 trading days.

Plaintiff is represented by Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP. If you are a
member of the class described above, you may, not later than sixty days
from October 8, 1999, 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. If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact:

Ira M. Press, Esq. Pamela Edgar, Paralegal KIRBY McINERNEY & SQUIRE, LLP
830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone:
212/317-2300 or Toll Free 888/529-4787 E-Mail: pedgar@kmslaw.com
TICKERS: NASDAQ:HIFN


INFORMATION ANALYSIS: Virginia Ct Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Analysis Incorporated (OTC Bulletin Board: IAIC) announced
that the complaint in the class action securities fraud case filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia has been dismissed.

>From the inception of this case, IAI has contended that the plaintiffs'
allegations were insufficient to support any actionable claim against
the company and that it disclosed all material information pertaining to
the company through its press releases and periodic reports. With all
the facts at hand, the plaintiffs could not fashion a complaint which
satisfied the court. This eventually resulted in the court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' complaint and the plaintiffs' determination to
abandon the litigation.

Sandor Rosenberg, IAI's president, has remarked "Obviously, we are
gratified that the court, through its dismissal of the complaint, has
vindicated the position we have steadfastly advanced as to our lack of
any liability and that the plaintiffs saw fit not to continue with the
litigation. It was our conviction as to a lack of any liability that led
us to continuously reject any settlement proposals. Now, we can pursue
opportunities and seek to advance our business without the cloud of the
litigation hanging over us." About Information Analysis Incorporated
Information Analysis Incorporated (www.infoa.com), headquartered in
Fairfax, Virginia, is an information technology services company. The
Company is a web solution provider and software conversion specialist,
modernizing legacy systems and extending their reach to the internet
world.

Additional information for investors This release may contain
forward-looking statements regarding the Company's business, customer
prospects, or other factors that may affect future earnings or financial
results. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties which could
cause actual results to vary materially from those expressed in the
forward-looking statements. Investors should read and understand the
risk factors detailed in the Company's 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1998 and in other filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


MATTEL INC: Harvey Greenfield Files Securities Suit In California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield:

The Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield announced that it has filed a class
action securities lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against Mattel, Inc. (NYSE:MAT) and
certain individuals associated with Mattel. The suit is brought on
behalf of purchasers of Mattel stock who purchased shares between Oct.
22, 1998 and Oct. 1, 1999, or who owned shares of The Learning Company,
Inc. (NYSE:TLC) that were exchanged for Mattel shares as a result of the
merger of the two companies.

The Complaint alleges that Mattel and certain of its executive officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10-b(5) of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Complaint seeks damages for the Class arising from a fraud on the Class
as a result of a scheme and common course of conduct by the defendants
during the Class Period, alleging that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements as to Mattel's financial condition and
the results of its operations. The complaint alleges that these false
and misleading statements caused the price of Mattel stock to become
artificially inflated.

The plaintiff is represented by the Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield. If
you are a member of the class described above, you may move the Court no
later than Dec. 6, 1999 to serve as lead plaintiff, but you must meet
certain legal requirements. If you have any questions or wish to discuss
this action or your rights with regard to this litigation, you may
contact Harvey Greenfield, Esq. at the Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield, 60
East 42nd Street, Suite 2001, New York, NY 10165, telephone
212-949-5500, or toll free 877-949-5500, facsimile 212-949-0049, or by
e-mail at hgreenf@banet.net TICKERS: NYSE:MAT NYSE:TLC


NJ POLICE: Judge Orders Broad Discovery on Racial Profiling On Turnpike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
State authorities must turn over nearly seven years worth of New Jersey
State Police records to defendants who claim they were arrested due to
racial profiling by troopers on the New Jersey Turnpike.

State Superior Court Judge Victor Friedman issued the far-reaching
discovery order last Friday in a hearing involving 18 current Burlington
County prosecutions in which defense attorneys allege arrests were
prompted by racially motivated motor vehicle stops. The judge also
temporarily consolidated the prosecutions. But he warned that if defense
attorneys want to join the action, they must first apply to the court.
"This is not any kind of class action. There are no class actions in
criminal law,'' Friedman said. "It will not be automatic. Someone
doesn't write a letter and say 'I want in on this parade.'''

The New Jersey Attorney General's Office has 75 days to comply with the
discovery order of records that include internal memos, personnel files,
arrest records and other data related to racial profiling. Dismissing
the state's non-specific claims of privilege, Friedman directed the
state to disclose all records dating back to January 1993. "It is a very
broad order. It extends from one end of the turnpike to the other,''
said Kevin Walker, the deputy public defender who filed the discovery
motion. "I think the impact of today's ruling may go far beyond
Burlington County,'' Walker said after the three-hour hearing.
Walker, who represents five of the 18 defendants, was one of nine
attorneys who joined in requesting the records.

Friedman granted nearly all of the defense requests for discovery,
giving them what one attorney said was an unprecedented look inside
State Police operations. The defense will be allowed to search arrest
data, operations reports and other records for troopers who patrol all
122 miles of the nation's busiest highway.

Also included in the discovery will be all the data state officials used
in compiling an Attorney General's Office report issued earlier this
year, which acknowledged the practice of racial profiling. The defense
can have access to all of the internal drafts of that interim report as
well as other State Police memos and discipline reports involving racial
profiling.

Defense attorneys are hoping this extensive discovery will give them
proof that state troopers engaged in a consistent pattern of racial
profiling, the practice of targeting minorities on the highway. These
once-private documents, many of which are management reports and
internal affairs records, could also document racial masking, Deputy
Public Defender David P. Jacobs said in court. According to Jacobs,
racial masking is a practice where troopers falsify records to hide the
racial identity of the motorists they stop.

The state will comply with Friedman's ruling, but may challenge the
release of specific records, again citing privileged information, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General Paul Heinzel said after the hearing.

In court, Friedman sharply criticized the state's use of executive
privilege in its motion rejecting the defense discovery claims.
"Privilege is not another word for cover-up,'' Friedman said. "Simply by
putting a sentence in a brief'' is not enough to assert or meet the
burden to bar the defense from securing the materials, he added. The
state, Friedman said, must provide affidavits detailing the nature of
the information and the reasons to exclude it from the defense.

The state must provide the defense with a motion when it claims
privilege and if the information is so sensitive, Friedman said he will
see the affidavit first.

While there might be outside broader social issues relating to racial
profiling, Friedman said that is not his concern. "I am not interested
in any causes. I'm interested only in cases, the cases before me,'' he
said. "Judges are not advocates for parties and they are not advocates
for causes. Judges are permitted to be advocates for justice,'' Friedman
said. "These discovery steps are a search for truth.''
That search, Friedman said, is to ensure "that the phrase "equal justice
under the law' does not become hollow.'' (The Legal Intelligencer
10-27-1999)


NORMAN STANLEY: Inspection On Rental Properties In Wake To End Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A judge said that he wants an independent inspector to sign off on
landlord Norman Stanley's rental properties before they change hands,
saying it may be the only way to resolve a 16-year-old class-action
lawsuit over substandard housing. If conditions at Stanley's properties
don't improve within a year, Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald
Stephens said during a hearing, then he will take "drastic measures:" He
could take over or close down Stanley's 422 rental units or throw out
the tenants' lawsuit, depending on who is to blame.

Stephens said it isn't clear whether the problem is Stanley's not making
repairs or tenants' vandalizing and skipping out without paying rent.
"I'm concerned this is a vicious cycle that nobody seems to be able to
get out of," Stephens said. "Nothing's changed in these 13 years, and I
don't think it's all Mr. Stanley's fault, although he has elected to
operate a business in this environment."

Stephens - who 13 years ago ordered Stanley to stop renting dilapidated
homes or be held in contempt - told attorneys for the landlord and
tenants to work out the details, whether it means forcing Stanley to
hire inspectors or asking the city of Raleigh to do it.

Stanley, 74, did not attend the hearing because of health problems, one
of his attorneys, A. Bartlett White, told the judge. Stanley is one of
the biggest landlords in Wake County, where 98 percent of his property
is located. Tenants have complained over the years about holes in their
roofs and floors, doors that don't lock, electrical problems and poor
plumbing. City records show that one out of every seven complaints that
inspectors received in the first half of this year were about his units.

Legal-aid lawyers brought the class-action lawsuit that led to Stephens'
original order requiring Stanley not to charge full rent on substandard
homes and prohibiting him from using eviction notices just to collect
back rent.

Earlier this year, attorneys for the N.C. Justice and Community
Development Center revived the lawsuit by initiating steps to ask a
judge to hold Stanley in contempt for violating the original order. The
session Tuesday was on their motion for a judge to order Stanley to show
cause at a subsequent hearing on why he shouldn't be held in contempt.

That motion coincidentally landed in Stephens' courtroom. After
reviewing videotapes and affidavits that both sides submitted - from
tenants claiming repairs were never made to Stanley's employees saying
that tenants were vandalizing the properties - Stephens said there is no
question that the conditions are often deplorable. "It's hard to believe
people live there or have lived there in this day and age in Wake
County," he said.

Stanley's lax requirements for renters - no credit or employment checks
and no deposits - serve a niche of the community that can't find other
housing, the judge said, but it also sets both sides up for failure.

Evidence that the problems aren't just the landlord's fault can be found
in reports that some tenants have run wires and hoses to abandoned
houses next door for their friends, and then complained to Stanley that
their water and electrical bills are too high, according to the
affidavits. Other tenants have intentionally damaged property because
they were being evicted, but then the houses were rented before repairs
were made, sometimes without sinks or door locks, for example.

But rather than allow the two sides to argue over a contempt citation,
the judge told them he wants to find a solution to the problem. He said
he favors an independent inspector to sign off on each unit prior to
someone moving in; the inspector would then develop a record of which
homes were not being repaired and which were being vandalized.

Tenants' attorneys William D. Rowe and Jay Butler said requiring some
third-party inspector to make sure the units are up to code is exactly
what they want, but White, an attorney for Stanley, questioned who would
pay for it. Stephens acknowledged that it is going to be a challenge to
come up with a solution that isn't too expensive and isn't passed along
to tenants.

David Permar, another Stanley attorney, said that the city of Raleigh is
obligated to inspect homes and that the judge could order it to do so.
But the judge said that isn't necessarily fair to taxpayers, especially
considering the nearly 100 percent annual turnover rate that Stanley
claims he has.

Ed Owens, the city's director of inspections, said in a telephone
interview that there is no way his staff could handle that. "Heck, no.
I've got a plateful. I'm not going to manage his property," Owens said.
"I've got enough to do just keeping up with complaints about him."
He said he discussed the matter with the lawyers Monday and recommended
that they try to hire private home inspectors who can make sure each
rental unit meets the minimum housing code. Owens praised the judge's
approach, and said he agrees that both Stanley and his tenants are at
fault at different times.

Stephens issued the show-cause order but delayed a hearing on it for one
year, then set as a condition the requirement that both sides work on
the resolution. In a year, he will consider either dismissing the case
or allowing the contempt proceedings to go forward. "But give it a
chance," he told the lawyers. "Try to make it work, for heaven's sake.
... This better work, because if it doesn't, any other court action
would be rather dramatic. I'd have to take over the property or close it
down, or dismiss the class-action and let the American way of commerce
proceed." (The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) 10-27-1999)


NY CITY: Sued Over Housing Conditions For Homeless With Aids
------------------------------------------------------------
In July, New York City officials sent Zonell Wright to stay at the
Allerton Hotel in Manhattan, one of 53 hotels the city uses for
short-term housing of homeless people with AIDS or symptomatic HIV
infection.

He arrived to find a tiny room, ridden with rodents scurrying around and
even crawling into his bed. The pillow case had blood stains on it.
There was no fan or air conditioner for the heat wave, just a window
opened onto the stench of rotting food on the ground below. Drug
syringes were strewn around the hallways.

Conditions were so bad Wright never slept in the hotel. Instead, he
would sit outside in a park, waiting until morning, when he could enter
and change his clothes. He later was placed at the Central Queens YMCA,
but because it bans refrigerators, he could not refrigerate his
medications or food.

Wright, 42, is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed Sept. 29 in U.S.
District Court in Manhattan demanding that the city's Division of AIDS
Services Income Support improve conditions for the roughly 2,000 people
who are placed in hotels like the Allerton each month.

The suit alleges that the city violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the federal Rehabilitation Act, the New York City Administrative
Code and their common-law duty of care to plaintiffs.

"Quite simply, the emergency housing that defendants provide to
plaintiffs is deplorable," the suit said. "It is often unfit for human
habitation, let alone habitation by plaintiffs, all of whom suffer from
severely compromised immune systems."

Section 21-128(b) of the city's Administrative Code requires DASIS to
provide "medically appropriate" housing for qualified individuals living
with HIV or AIDS. Such housing must include a lockable bathroom and a
private refrigerator where clients can store temperature-sensitive
medicines and food. Eating must be scheduled according to medication
regimens.

The suit relies on clients' testimony and two independent investigations
and one City Council hearing to document conditions at the single-room
occupancy hotels, which are privately owned and operated under
agreements with DASIS.

"It's unbelievable. It's really unbelievable," said Armen H. Merjian, a
senior staff attorney with Housing Works Inc. "New York City knows that
it cannot put immunocompromised people in these conditions, but yet it
does it anyway." (AIDS Policy and Law 10-15-1999)
SWISSAIR 111: Attorney Wins First Settlement & Donates For Air Safety

Arthur Alan Wolk, internationally-known aviation attorney based in
Philadelphia, on Friday, October 22, achieved a landmark first domestic
settlement from Swissair flight 111. Wolk announced that he is donating
a portion of his fee to establish a panel of unbiased experts to study
and recommend critical improvements in aircraft wiring and fire safety.

The settlement, reached on behalf of the family of 37-year-old Richard
Coburn, a husband and father of three, formerly of East Brunswick, NJ,
is hoped to be the first of many from the tragic plunge into the waters
of Halifax, Nova Scotia of a Swissair MD-11. Wolk and Coburn's widow
both hope to achieve some lasting benefit from the tragedy by working to
improve aviation safety.

The cause of this accident is still under investigation by Canadian and
U.S. authorities. Privately, however, most agree that Wolk's assessment,
made within hours of the crash was correct - - that the disaster was
preventable.

Wolk has been on the plaintiffs' steering committees of most of the
country's major aircrash disasters and has correctly identified the
causes of each disaster well in advance of the release of official
findings. He is also credited with many times providing vital
information to government investigators. Wolk, who is a member of the
Swissair 111 plaintiffs' steering committee; the group that is guiding
all of the victims' cases through the courts, says that this early
settlement will accelerate the process of closure for victims' families
whose agony has been prolonged due to the lack of settlements thus far.
"Now the Coburn family will be secure with Richard Coburn's legacy and
can begin the most important job of cherishing the memory of their
wonderful husband and father. By working to improve aviation safety it
is our hope that no other family will again suffer such unspeakable
pain," said Wolk. For more information, please contact Arthur Alan Wolk
215/545-4220


TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT Chairman Says Industry Will Win Appeal In Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco executives said they were confident a multi
-billion dollar class action against tobacco companies in the United
States could be foiled. Non-smoking chairman Mr Martin Broughton said -
after reporting a six per cent rise in the tobacco company's nine months
profits - he is confident a recent court ruling would ultimately force
claimants to fight the industry individually. "Every federal court that
has looked at these kinds of class action cases has thrown them out,"
said Mr Broughton as he looked forward to a successful appeal at the end
of the ongoing Engle versus Reynolds lawsuit in Florida.

US subsidiary Brown & Williamson, the third-largest cigarette maker in
the United States, is named as a defendant in the class-action suit
alongside market leader Philip Morris, maker of top-selling Marlboro
cigarettes, and RJR Tobacco, manufacturer of Camels.

In a defeat last July, the US cigarette makers were found liable for the
lung cancer and other ailments of as many as one million smokers in
Florida and face in follow-up trials the possibility of damages worth
hundreds of billions of dollars.

BAT has pinned its hope of defeating the class action in part on a
ruling in early September which limited damages for victims of
smoking-related illnesses to awards on an individual basis. (Birmingham
Post 10-27-1999)


TOBACCO LITIGATION: New York To Issue Tobacco Bonds
---------------------------------------------------
New York City said it would issue $ 700m in bonds backed by the future
damages from last year's ground-breaking tobacco settlement in November.
The issue, which would be the first of its kind, is likely to be
followed shortly by Nassau County in New York state, which desperately
needs the funds to plug a hole in its finances.

Some analysts had expressed concern that last week's verdict against the
industry in a class action lawsuit could heighten investor nerves about
the securitisation. The judgement exposed tobacco companies to punitive
damages which could exceed $ 200bn. However, Moody's Investors Service
said that the industry may not have to pay any damages from the suit for
decades. (Financial Times (London) 10-28-1999)


TOBACCO LITIGATION: NY Consumer Fraud Case Can't Be Part Of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cigarette smokers in New York seeking to sue five major tobacco
companies lost a major battle Tuesday when the state's top court said
they cannot pursue their consumer fraud case as part of a class action.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals effectively means that the courthouse
doors are closed to smokers who claimed cigarette manufacturers
fraudulently concealed the addictive nature of nicotine.

Although it is still possible for individual consumers to bring
lawsuits, observers said it is unlikely any will because the potential
damages -- on an individual basis -- are minuscule, while the legal
costs could be astronomical. ''It's a very sad day for the many, many
New York consumers who have been fooled by the tobacco companies for the
past 20 years,'' said attorney Martis Ann Brachtl of New York City, who
represented smokers.

Steve Kottak, spokesman for one of the defendants, Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., said ''the legal system did the right thing'' in this
case. ''It underscores the fact that fact smoking and health lawsuits
should not be treated as class actions.''

In the proposed class action lawsuit, smokers sought reimbursement for
money spent on cigarettes since 1980, when the Legislature enacted a
consumer protection statute barrng deceptive trade practices.

Attorneys for the smokers attempted to sue Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip
Morris Inc., Brown & Williamson, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and the
American Tobacco Co. after internal documents unveiled during 1994
congressional hearings revealed that companies had concealed years of
research on the addictive qualities of nicotine.

The documents indicated that tobacco companies not only covered up
evidence of nicotine's addictivity, but also devised ways to enhance its
impact and, therefore, get people hooked on cigarettes.

Smokers in New York filed a class action consumer fraud claim, alleging
they were duped into purchasing an addictive product that they would not
have bought if they had known the danger, and seeking reimbursement for
whatever they have spent on cigarettes over the last 19 years. Since the
amount of the reimbursement, per individual smoker, would be relatively
small while legal expenses would be high, plaintiff's attorneys sought
to proceed with a class action lawsuit seeking collective damages.

''Consumers didn't want to buy addictive drugs,'' Brachtl said. ''They
didn't know what they were buying, and wouldn't have bought if they had
known the truth.''

But the Court of Appeals said the claim was pre-empted by a federal law
that has required warning labels on cigarette packs since 1969. It also
said a class action case with, potentially, millions of plaintiffs,
would be unmanageable.

All seven judges on the panel agreed with the opinion written by Judge
Richard C. Wesley. However, since three of the Court of Appeals judges
had recused themselves for unexplained reasons, three lower-court
jurists, including Appellate Division Presiding Justice Anthony V.
Cardona of Albany, were on the panel. (The Times Union (Albany, NY)
10-27-1999)


UNISYS: Berger & Montague File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. (http://home.bm.net)announced that on October
28, 1999, it filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal
securities laws in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against Unisys (NYSE: UIS) and its two highest
officers, on behalf of all persons who purchased Unisys common stock
between May 4, 1999, and October 14, 1999, inclusive. Case No.
99-CV-5333.

The Complaint charges that Unisys and three of its highest officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially misleading
press releases purporting to describe large contracts with major
customers, which failed to reveal that the contracts were subject to
regulatory and other contingencies, and therefore could not be expected
to generate revenues in the near future.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants utilized their inside
information regarding the artificial inflation of the Company's stock
price to sell significant amounts of their personal Unisys stock
holdings, for proceeds of over $4 million. In addition, the complaint
alleges that the artificial inflation of the price of Unisys stock
permitted the company to complete an acquisition of Pulsepoint
Communications for fewer shares of stock.

If you purchased Unisys common stock during the May 4, 1999, through
October 14, 1999 time period, you may wish to join the action. You may
move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff on or before December 27,
1999. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights with respect to this matter, you
may call or write to: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Arthur Stock, Esq. Susan
Kutcher, Investor Relations Manager Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust
Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (888) 891-2289 or (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-5715 Website: http://home.bm.nete-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net


UNISYS: Spector & Roseman File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spector & Roseman, P.C. announced that on October 28, 1999, it filed a
class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Unisys (NYSE: UIS) and its two highest officers, on
behalf of all persons who purchased Unisys common stock between May 4,
1999, and October 14, 1999. (Case No.: 99-CV-5333)

The Complaint charges that Unisys and three of its highest officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially misleading
press releases purporting to describe large contracts with major
customers, which failed to reveal that the contracts were subject to
regulatory and other contingencies, and therefore could not be expected
to generate revenues in the near future.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants utilized their inside
information regarding the artificial inflation of the Company's stock
price to sell significant amounts of their personal Unisys stock
holdings, for proceeds of over $4 million. In addition, the complaint
alleges that the artificial inflation of the price of Unisys stock
permitted the company to complete an acquisition of Pulsepoint
Communications for fewer shares of stock.

If you purchased Unisys common stock during the May 4, 1999, through
October 14, 1999 time period, you may wish to join the action. You may
move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff on or before December 21,
1999.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel
Robert M. Roseman toll-free at 1-888-844-5862 or via E-mail at
classaction@spectorandroseman.com. For more detailed information about
the firm please visit website at http://www.spectorandroseman.com


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit In Maine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Class Plaintiff, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine issued the
following:

A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of Maine against UNUMProvident Corp., Inc.
("UNUMProvident") (NYSE: UNM; formerly Provident Companies, Inc.
(formerly NYSE: PVT)) and certain officers and directors of the Company
on behalf of the shareholders of UNUMProvident and former shareholders
of UNUM Corporation ("UNUM") (formerly NYSE: UNM) who purchased shares
of UNUMProvident or UNUM during the period February 4, 1998 and August
2, 1999, inclusive or were issued UNUMProvident stock pursuant to a
joint proxy/registration statement and prospectus (the "Joint Proxy").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, by making false and misleading statements in
press releases, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
including the Joint Proxy concerning, among other things, understating
reserves for disability insurance claims, and merger costs, which
resulted in the overstatement of UNUMProvident's and UNUM's total
assets, shareholders' equity, and net income.

The complaint further alleges that in connection with the merger between
UNUM and Provident, defendants issued the false and misleading Joint
Proxy, which failed to disclose, among other things: the adverse impact
of increased disability insurance claims on the earnings of
UNUMProvident; that Provident was allegedly deriving a material portion
of its income by improperly denying disability insurance claims, which
were the subject of lawsuits against Provident; and that both UNUM's and
Provident's due diligence reviews in connection with the merger were by
agreement limited in scope.

The plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine.
If you are a member of the Class described above, you may, no later than
November 30, 1999, 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. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this case or your rights or
interests, please contact: Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations
Manager Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel for Class Plaintiff 3300 Two
Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 800/417-7305
or 215/963-0600 fax number 888/417-7306 or 215/963-0838 e-mail at
msgoldman@barrack.com TICKERS: NYSE:UNM


                               *********


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  * * *