CAR_Public/991109.MBX                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, November 9, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 195

                               Headlines

ABBOTT LAB.: Fined By FDA Re Quality Control; Alza Merger Under Threat
ABBOTT LAB: Merger Pending; Alza Sides With Class Action Lawyers
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit In Illinois
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Finkelstein & Krinsk File Securities Suit In CA
CAREMATRIX CORP: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit In Massachusetts

CAREMATRIX CORP: Berman, DeValerio Files Securities Suit In MA
CAREMATRIX CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi File Securities Suit In MA
CAREMATRIX CORP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In MA
CAREMATRIX CORP: Moulton & Gans File Securities Suit In MA
CAREMATRIX CORP: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Suit In MA

CAREMATRIX CORP: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In MA
CAREMATRIX CORP: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit In MA
CAREMATRIX CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In MA
CONDOR TECHNOLOGY: Announces Dismissal of Securities Suit In Maryland
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Milberg Files Securities Suit In Iowa

EVEREN SECURITIES: Opposes Class Status In Chicago Yield-Burning Suit
EXIDE CORPORATION: Opposes Ala. AG's Intervention In Car Batteries Suit
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Russia Demands $2.7 Bil For Nazi-Era Slave Labor
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: U.S. Envoy Will Discuss Comp. With Polish Officials
KTI INC: Will Defend Vigorously Securities Suit, SEC Filing Says

MICROSOFT CORP: Cable News Network Coverage On Antitrust Case
MICROSOFT CORP: Lawyer May See Old Case Arm In Antitrust Claims
NATIONSBANK: Settles Illinois Suit Over Check Bouncing
NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In Illinois
OSULLIVAN INDUSTRIES: Decries Merit Of Dela. Securities Suit Re Merger

PERVASIVE SOFTWARE: Shepherd & Geller File Securities Suit In Texas
PLM INT'L: May Settle Investors' Suits In Alabama And California
PROMISSORY NOTES: Issuers Sued And Targetted For Crackdown On Sale
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Reports On SmithKline's CA Suit Over Reused Needles
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settles Some Claims Over Clinical Billing In Conn.

RAYTHEON COMPANY: Abbey, Gardy Announces Securities Expanded Suit In MA
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Wolf Popper Announces Securities Expanded Suit In MA
STARNET COMMUNICATIONS: Says Shareholders Condemn Securities Suits
TOBYHANNA ARMY: Employees Sue Over Privacy For Psychological Test
UNION CARBIDE: Kentucky Fd Ct Suit Alleges Radiation Exposure

WAR VICTIMS: Japan Plans To Compensate Korean War Laborers

                              *********

ABBOTT LAB.: Fined By FDA Re Quality Control; Alza Merger Under Threat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories is to pay a $ 100 million fine to the US government
and temporarily suspend the manufacture of 125 types of its diagnostic
devices after reaching agreement with the US Food and Drug
Administration, which has been questioning quality control at Abbott's
plant in Lake County, Illinois (Marketletter October 11).

Though Abbott can still make and distribute "medically-necessary"
diagnostic products such as assays for hepatitis, cardiovascular disease
and cancer, the FDA says that production of other devices is to be
suspended until the Lake County plant conforms with the current Quality
System Regulation.

Abbott has consented to the decree (though the company does not admit to
any violations), saying it will take a one-time charge of $ 168 million
to cover costs associated with meeting the requirements of the FDA and
the $ 100 million fine. The charge prompted the firm to adjust
previously-announced third-quarter 1999 earnings per share down to $
0.30 from $ 0.38, while fourth-quarter earnings may be negatively
impacted by as much as $ 0.02 per share and $ 0.10 per share for fiscal
2000. Analysts' previous consensus EPS estimates for the fourth-quarter
were $ 0.54 and $ 1.86 for the full year.

It comes as little surprise that Abbott agreed to the FDA's request, as
the firm will now be hoping that it can complete its pending mergers
with Perclose and, perhaps more significantly, Alza Corp (Marketletters
passim). Doubts have been cast over the latter deal, however, since both
Abbott and Alza were hit with a class action lawsuit which alleges that
the firms misled the latter's shareholders in recommending Abbott's
stock-for-stock acquisition (Marketletter October 18).

The lawsuit claims that Alza shareholders, prior to their vote on the
merger, were not told of the discussions with the FDA over the Lake
County plant. Abbott has now been ordered to hand over information to
the plaintiff in the lawsuit which could lead to another shareholder
vote being taken. This could quite conceivably go against approving the
merger, especially as the value of the transaction is now $ 6.2 billion
(on the basis of Alza shareholders receiving 1.20 shares of Abbott
common stock for each share they own) from the original evaluation of
approximately $ 7.3 billion. (Marketletter 11-8-1999)


ABBOTT LAB: Merger Pending; Alza Sides With Class Action Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
If there was a botched merger sweepstakes, I would nominate the proposed
marriage of Abbott Laboratories of Chicago with Alza Corp. of Palo Alto.

On June 21, Abbott, the pharmaceutical giant, said it would acquire
Alza, a local drug discovery firm, in a stock swap then worth $7.3
billion. Alza shareholders approved the deal September 21. One week
later, Abbott revealed for the first time that the FDA considered
Abbott's diagnostics division in "noncompliance" with federal
manufacturing guidelines. "The parties are in discussions over a
proposed consent decree," Abbott said. "If those discussions are not
successful, the government has advised the company" it would sue to shut
down Abbott's main diagnostic-device factory in Lake County, Ill.

Shares of both firms plunged. Within days, several law firms had filed
an array of class-action lawsuits, charging Abbott and Alza with
defrauding Alza shareholders by concealing the FDA problem until after
the vote.

Two weeks ago, class-action attorneys asked the federal judge handling
the case to force both companies to turn over any documents that would
show when and what they knew about the FDA's beef with Abbott.

Alza stunned observers by filing court papers siding with the class
action lawyers. "It is uncommon for a defendant to join you in a motion
like this," said Steve Toll, one of the attorneys representing
shareholders. "The judge said that fact swayed him to grant our motion."
Alza has not explained its unusual move, which has encouraged
speculation that Abbott may not have disclosed the problem to Alza
during the premerger talks.

Last week Abbott agreed to pay a $100 million fine to settle the FDA
dispute. That is the largest civil penalty ever levied against a medical
product manufacturer. Abbott also agreed to stop selling certain
diagnostic devices until the FDA says its manufacturing is up to snuff.

Abbott's stock price, and the value of the Alza deal, fell yet again.
Abbott ended the week at $38.50, making the deal worth $6.4 billion --
almost $1 billion less than the value at the outset.

Looked at differently, the exchange rate of 1.2 Abbott shares for each
Alza share means the deal now represents only a 4.3 percent premium for
Alza, based on its closing price of $44.31 last Friday.

For the record, both companies remain committed to the deal. But last
week, the two firms agreed not to close their merger before December 30
without holding a second shareholder vote. Such an agreement would head
off the scheduled November 23 hearing to stop the merger.

Investors don't know whether Abbott and Alza are preparing to settle
with the lawyers to make the class action suits disappear, or are
looking for a face-saving way to break or renegotiate the deal.

The merger agreement leaves them plenty of wiggle room. According to
Alza's proxy statement, the two firms can agree to walk away from the
deal "even if Alza's stockholders have approved it." In addition, either
firm can "without the consent of the other, terminate the merger
agreement" if the deal isn't completed by December 31. (The San
Francisco Chronicle 11-8-1999)


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit In Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. announced that on
Nov. 5, 1999, it filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the
federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:ABT) and
its two highest officers, on behalf of all persons who purchased Abbott
common stock between March 17, 1999 and Sept. 29, 1999, inclusive, Case
No. 99C-7229.

The Complaint charges that Abbott and two of its highest officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants misled investors by
concealing important information about an FDA audit of its diagnostic
devices manufacturing facility. According to the Complaint, the
deficiencies discovered in this audit led the government to file a civil
suit against Abbott, which settled when Abbott paid a $ 100 million fine
and discontinued production of many diagnostic products. The Complaint
alleges that all defendants were fully aware of the deficiencies
enumerated by the FDA audit because they received a detailed letter from
the FDA on March 17. The Complaint further alleges that one defendant
utilized his inside information regarding the artificial inflation of
the Company's stock prices to sell significant amounts of his personal
Abbott stock holdings. In addition, the complaint alleges that the
artificial inflation of the price of Abbott stock permitted the company
to pursue two stock acquisitions of other companies under favorable
terms.

If you purchased Abbott common stock during the March 17, 1999, through
September 29, 1999 period, you may wish to join the action. You may move
the court to serve as a lead plaintiff on or before Dec. 20, 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: Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. Michael J.
Freed/Carol V. Gilden, 312/346-3100 Fax: 312/621-1750 mfreed@muchlaw.com
cgilden@muchlaw.com TICKERS: NYSE:ABT


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Finkelstein & Krinsk File Securities Suit In CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch (NYSE:ANF) is accused in a class action lawsuit
filed by Finkelstein & Krinsk of violating the federal securities laws
in conjunction with the Company's recent disclosure of slowed third
quarter growth and failure to meet earnings estimates.

According to the Complaint, on October 8, 1999, the Company tipped off
Lazard Freres & Co., a national securities brokerage firm and also a
named defendant, of the lagging third quarter earnings and growth.
Lazard Freres then allegedly advised its own clients of the sluggish
sales, leading to a massive wave of selling by Lazard and its clients.
On October 14, 1999, Abercrombie & Fitch disclosed that which it had
previously disclosed to Lazard. Defendants October 14, 1999 disclosure
led to a one-day 19 percent drop in the price per share of Abercrombie &
Fitch stock. Defendants' statements and conduct caused Abercrombie &
Fitch stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class
Period (October 8, 1999 - October 13, 1999), and violated the disclosure
and other principles of the securities laws.

The Complaint particularizes plaintiff's allegations of how the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and specifies
their illegal conduct, false statements and omitted material facts. The
Complaint has been filed in United States District Court for the
Southern District of California and represents a class comprised of all
individual and institutional investors for the pertinent time period.

"The defendants' conduct represents a gross violation of the federal
securities laws," stated Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq., of Finkelstein and
Krinsk. "We are particularly pleased that institutional investors have
contacted us as we are recognized as the resource of choice for these
large investors who appreciate that the quality of our research and our
willingness to include their own attorneys in the process reflects our
flexible approach."

If you purchased or acquired a significant amount of Abercrombie & Fitch
stock during the Class Period, you can join in the action on favorable
terms without cost or expense to you by contacting Finkelstein & Krinsk.
Members of the Class who wish to actively participate must act by not
later than December 18, 1999.
Contact: Jeffrey R. Krinsk at Finkelstein & Krinsk, the Koll Center, 501
West Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101 by calling toll free
877-493-5366 or E-Mail - fk@class-action-law.com Or fax 619-238-5425.
TICKERS: NYSE:ANF


CAREMATRIX CORP: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit In MA
---------------------------------------------------------
The following was released on November 5, 1999 by Abbey, Gardy &
Squitieri, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
CareMatrix Corp. (NASDAQ: CMDC) and certain of its officers and
directors for violations of the federal securities laws. If you
purchased CareMatrix Corp. common stock between October 28, 1998 and
October 7, 1999, you may, not later than January 3, 2000, move the court
to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class action seeking to recover
monetary damages on behalf of all similarly-situated investors. In order
to serve as a lead plaintiff, 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, please contact: Stephen J.
Fearon James S. Notis Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP 212 East 39th Street
New York, New York 10016 TELEPHONE: (800) 889-3701 or (212) 889-3700
FAX: (212) 684-5191 E-MAIL: jnotis@a-g-s.com TICKERS: NASDAQ:CMDC


CAREMATRIX CORP: Berman, DeValerio Files Securities Suit In MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP, issues the following press release:

A securities class action has been filed against CareMatrix Corp.
(Nasdaq: CMDC) on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of CareMatrix Corp. between October 29, 1998 and October 7, 1999,
inclusive.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, is brought in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for violations
of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
action charges that CareMatrix and certain of its officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
financial condition, earnings and prospects. Specifically, the Company
improperly recorded development fees. As a result of these materially
false and misleading statements and omissions, the complaint alleges
that the price of CareMatrix common stock was artificially inflated
during the Class Period. In addition, under the federal securities laws
you may, but not later than sixty days from November 3, 1999 move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class, if you so choose. To
serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.

Contact: Jennifer L. Finger, Esq. of Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP, One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, (800)-516-9926, or E-Mail:
bdplaw@bermanesq.com or visit website at http://www.bermanesq.com


CAREMATRIX CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi File Securities Suit In MA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP:

You are hereby notified that a Class Action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for District of Massachusetts, on behalf of
all purchasers of CareMatrix Corp. (NASDAQ:CMDC) between October 28,
1998, and October 7, 1999, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges CareMatrix and certain officers and directors of
the Company during the relevant time period with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business, products,
operations and finances. Because of the issuance of a series of false
and misleading statements, the price of CareMatrix common stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. If you
purchased CareMatrix common stock during the Class Period, you may, not
later than 60 days from November 3, 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, please contact: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
Stacey J. Dana, Esq. Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. 212/986-1074 877/247-4292
FaruqiLaw@aol.com TICKERS: NASDAQ: CMDC


CAREMATRIX CORP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In MA
----------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of CareMatrix Corp.
(Nasdaq: CMDC) between October 28, 1998, and October 7, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges CareMatrix and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, financial
condition, earnings and prospects. As a result of these materially false
and misleading statements and omissions, plaintiff alleges that the
price of CareMatrix common stock was artificially inflated during the
Class Period.

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, at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach ("Milberg Weiss"),
Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman at One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th
Floor, New York, New York 10119-0165, by telephone 1-800-320-5081 or via
e-mail: endfraud@mwbhlny.com or visit website at http://www.milberg.com
TICKERS: NASDAQ:CMDC


CAREMATRIX CORP: Moulton & Gans File Securities Suit In MA
----------------------------------------------------------
The following was issued November 8, 1999 by Moulton & Gans, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of CareMatrix Corp.
(Nasdaq:CMDC) between October 28, 1998, and October 7, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges CareMatrix and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, financial
condition, earnings and prospects. As a result of these materially false
and misleading statements and omissions, plaintiff alleges that the
price of CareMatrix common stock was artificially inflated during the
Class Period.

Plaintiff is represented by Moulton & Gans, LLP, among others. If you
are a member of the class described above you may, not later than sixty
days from November 3, 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, at
Moulton & Gans, LLP, Stephen Moulton or Nancy Freeman Gans, 133 Federal
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 12110, (617) 369-7979.
TICKERS: NASDAQ:CMDC


CAREMATRIX CORP: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Suit In MA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit alleging securities fraud has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
CareMatrix Corp. (Nasdaq: CMDC) and five of its senior officers, by the
Boston law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP. The case was filed on behalf
of all persons who purchased CareMatrix common stock during the period
October 29, 1998 through October 7, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that CareMatrix improperly recognized revenue on
development fees said to be owed by a related party, thereby overstating
the Company's revenues and earnings, among other things, in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Commission.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may wish to join
the action. You may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff on or
before January 2, 2000. If you would like a copy of the complaint, or if
you would like to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights with respect to this matter, you may contact
Thomas Shapiro, Esq. or Lisa Palin, paralegal, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP,
75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, (800) 287-8119, fax at (617)
439-0134, or e-mail at carematrix@shulaw.com


CAREMATRIX CORP: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In MA
---------------------------------------------------------
The following was released by Stull, Stull & Brody:

Notice is hereby given that a securities class action lawsuit was filed
on November 5, 1999 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against CareMatrix Corp. (NASDAQ: CMDC) and certain of
its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of CareMatrix at artificially inflated prices between
October 28, 1998 and October 7, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws through a series of materially false and misleading statements. As
a result of these statements, prices of CareMatrix common stock were
artificially inflated during the Class Period, such that persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired CareMatrix shares during the Class
Period were damaged by overpaying for their shares.

Plaintiff is represented in this class action by Stull, Stull & Brody.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests with respect to this matter, please
contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll-free
1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com or by fax at 212-490-2022,
or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY
10017. TICKERS: NYSE: CMDC


CAREMATRIX CORP: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit In MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released by Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP:

Notice is hereby given that on November 8, 1999, a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against CareMatrix Corp. (NYSE: CMDC) and
certain officers and directors of the Company on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased the stock of CareMatrix during the period
October 28, 1998 and October 7, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements in press
releases, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
concerning, among other things, the Company's business, financial
condition, and results of operations. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the defendants inflated the assets, revenues and earnings
of the Company by not recording related- party transactions in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to, among other
things, secure collateralized financing.

Plaintiff is represented in this class action by the New York law firm
of Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP. If you purchased CareMatrix
common stock during the Class Period you may, not later than 60 days
from November 3, 1999, move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff,
provided you 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 this matter, please contact the following:
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP: 488 Madison Avenue, New York,
New York 10022 Telephone: 877-935-7400 (toll free) Robert I. Harwood,
Esq. rharwood@whhf.com; Jeffrey M.. Haber, Esq. jhaber@whhf.com or
Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq., fgerkens@whhf.com


CAREMATRIX CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement 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
District of Massachusetts on behalf of investors who bought CareMatrix
Corp. (NASDAQ: CMDC) stock between October 28, 1998 and October 7, 1999.

The lawsuit charges CareMatrix and several of its top officers with
violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States.
The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition,
earnings and prospects. As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, plaintiff alleges that the price of the Company's stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP. If you purchased CareMatrix stock during the Class
Period, you have until January 3, 2000 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 website at http://www.whafh.comAll e-mail
correspondence should make reference to CareMatrix. TICKERS: NASDAQ:CMDC



CONDOR TECHNOLOGY: Announces Dismissal of Securities Suit In Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Condor Technology Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: CNDR) announced on November
8, 1999 that the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland has issued an Order dismissing the class action lawsuit against
the company and one officer, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. The Complaint in the lawsuit filed in June 1999 was
based principally upon allegations of false statements by defendants
concerning the present and future financial condition and business
prospects of the company. The company believed the Plaintiff's
allegations of wrongdoing were baseless.

Kennard F. Hill, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Condor said,
"The company is gratified by the quick vindication of its view that the
case was without merit." About Condor Technology Solutions, Inc. Condor
Technology Solutions, Inc., an enterprise portal and e-commerce
solutions provider, uses its experience in delivering end-to-end
enterprise resource planning, customer relationship management, supply
chain management and decision support application solutions to build
customized enterprise portals that deliver critical information to
targeted users through Web-enabled applications.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Milberg Files Securities Suit In Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the Law Firm of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed on October
15, 1999, in the United States District Court for the District of Iowa
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Engineering
Animation, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAII), between July 29, 1999 and October 1,
1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Engineering Animation and certain officers and/or
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial
performance. Because of the issuance of a series of false and misleading
statements, the price of Engineering Animation common stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach, LLP, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
Schiffrin & Craig, LLP, Reinhardt & Anderson, Fruchter & Twersky,
Whitfield & Eddy, Weiss & Yourman, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
Lockridge Grindal & Nauen, and the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Abraham. 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, at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, Steven G. Schulman
or Samuel H. Rudman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, New
York 10119-0165, by telephone 1-800-320-5081 or via e-mail:
endfraud@mwbhlny.com or visit website at http://www.milberg.comTICKERS:
NASDAQ:EAII


EVEREN SECURITIES: Opposes Class Status In Chicago Yield-Burning Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago shouldn't be forced to serve as the class representative in a
yield burning lawsuit filed here on its behalf, attorneys representing
the city, underwriters, and accountants named in the action argued last
Friday.

Krislov & Associates filed the lawsuit on the behalf of several
taxpayers and Chicago. It alleges that Everen Securities Inc. -- then
known as Kemper Securities and now a part of First Union Securities Inc.
-- and Prudential Securities Inc. overcharged the city for open market
Treasuries the firms purchased for the city in conjunction with two
advance refundings the firms managed. The lawsuit also targets the
accounting firms that worked on the deals.

The defendants and Chicago are fighting the law firm's attempts to win
class certification for their claim. If U.S. District Court Magistrate
Martin C. Ashman rules in Krislov's favor, the firms would be forced to
defend themselves on dozens of refundings they worked on during the
early 1990s in a number of states, including Illinois, West Virginia,
Florida, and Missouri.

A city attorney argued that while the law firm can sue on the city's
behalf, no case law exists where an unwilling party has been forced to
act as a class representative. Aside from Chicago's arguments, the
defendants presented several arguments against class-action status,
citing the numerous state jurisdictions that would be covered by a
national lawsuit.

"It would make this trial unmanageable," said Miriam Bahcall,
Prudential's attorney. Lawyers also argued that the scope of the case
need not extend to a national level, given the current attempts by
federal agencies to reach a global yield burning settlement with major
Wall Street firms.

Krislov did score a minor victory last week on a separate yield burning
lawsuit filed against Bear Stearns & Co. in connection with a Cook
County, Ill., refunding. The defendants sought the case's dismissal
based on a claim that under state law the county board president, and
not the Cook County State's Attorney's office, should have been served
notice of the suit.

U.S. Magistrate George W. Lindberg denied the motion last Wednesday,
citing the county's knowledge of the lawsuit. (The Bond Buyer 11-8-1999)



EXIDE CORPORATION: Opposes Ala. AG's Intervention In Car Batteries Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Corporation (NYSE: EX), responded on November 5, 1999 to internet
discussions and media queries about the attorney general of Alabama
joining an existing, ongoing litigation.

The complaint alleges that automotive batteries were refurbished and
then sold as new to consumers in Alabama between 1993 and the present.

Robert A. Lutz, chairman and chief executive officer at Exide, said, "It
is disappointing to us that the state of Alabama has taken this action.
The new management team at Exide has vigorously enforced some of the
strictest quality standards in the industry and we have certainly been
willing to resolve consumer complaints."

The Alabama allegations arise from a $13,000 dispute in 1996 between
Exide Corporation and an auto parts company in that state over unpaid
invoices. Exide sued to recover payments owed. In a counterclaim filed
by the parts company, it alleged that it had been sold defective
batteries. The case ended in a mistrial in May of this year when a jury
found no compensatory damages, but awarded punitive damages in the
amount of $1.5 million. Such a ruling is inconsistent with Alabama law
and the case was set for retrial.

Exide opposed the attorney general's intervention in the case, stating
that it would unfairly broaden a dispute between two parties. Exide
plans to seek an appellate review of the Alabama action and the case has
been postponed until next year.

In addition, after meeting with the State Attorney General's Office on
October 25, 1999, Exide submitted a written offer to resolve any
concerns the State may have without resorting to prolonged litigation.
The State has not yet responded in writing to the offer.

Earlier in the year, without the admission of any wrongdoing, Exide
settled a much broader investigation with the state of Florida. In the
past few years, in Alabama, Exide successfully defended four other
lawsuits, including a class action, alleging the sales of used or
defective batteries as new, and settled a fifth for a small amount.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Russia Demands $2.7 Bil For Nazi-Era Slave Labor
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia has demanded up to $ 2.7 billion to compensate Nazi-era slave
laborers, further complicating negotiations on a broader settlement, a
newspaper reported Sunday. Russia has taken part in the talks since
March, but only now presented its claim through a German attorney
representing a foundation close to the Russian government, Welt am
Sonntag said.

The claim says 450,000 to 500,000 Russians who were not held in
concentration camps were forced to work for Nazi Germany during World
War II, though that figure is disputed by experts, the report said. The
lawyer, former German interior minister Gerhart Baum, wants each victim
to receive $ 5,400 in compensation.

The German government and companies that used slave labor to help
Hitler's war effort have proposed the fund to pay claims to survivors
and protect the firms from U.S. class-action lawsuits. Germany has
offered a total of $ 3.2 billion. Victims attorneys have asked for $ 12
billion. (The Record (Bergen County, NJ) 11-8-1999)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: U.S. Envoy Will Discuss Comp. With Polish Officials
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. envoy was to hold talks with government officials on November 8
on their complaints that Poles are being treated unfairly in
negotiations with Germany on compensating Nazi-era forced laborers. The
Foreign Ministry said the U.S. State Department's envoy for Holocaust
issues, James Bindenagel, would meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Janusz
Stanczyk, Poland's chief negotiator in the talks. Prime Minister Jerzy
Buzek's chief of staff, Jerzy Widzyk, and representatives of Nazi
victims also would take part, foreign ministry spokesman Pawel
Dobrowolski said.

Poland last week sharply criticized the United States and Germany for
trying to exclude from compensation Poles forced by Nazis to work on
German farms. ''We appreciate this gesture,'' Dobrowolski said of
Bindenagel's visit. ''This is an important element in negotiations,
discrete negotiations.''

The German companies that used slave and forced labor to help Hitler's
war effort have proposed the fund to pay claims to survivors and protect
themselves from U.S. class-action lawsuits. The German government and
the firms have offered a total of 6 billion marks ($ 3.2 billion/3.1
billion euros). Victims' attorneys have asked for $12 billion. Last
week, chief German negotiator Otto Lambsdorff announced the government
would contribute more to the compensation fund for and urged German
companies to do the same. The next round of talks is planned for Nov.
16-17 in Bonn, Germany.

Poland has accused the United States and Germany of foot-dragging in the
negotiations. It also criticized Washington for backing Germany's
attempts to bar from payments those forced to work on farms, including
some 220,000 Poles. Also last week, Polish officials sharply criticized
remarks by Lambsdorff that seasonal employment of eastern European
workers on German farms was a ''historical phenomenon.''

Poland's largest-circulation newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, suggested that
Buzek and Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek planned to raise Poland's
concerns at meetings with German officials this week during observances
of the 10th anniversary of Berlin Wall's opening. Dobrowolski said it is
possible the issue could come up during the meetings, but he denied it
would be a major theme. (AP Worldstream 11-8-1999)


KTI INC: Will Defend Vigorously Securities Suit, SEC Filing Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Company discloses the following litigation in its quarterly report
for the period ended June 30, 1999 filed with the SEC as of October 29,
1999:

The Company is a defendant in a consolidated purported class action,
which alleges violations of certain sections of the federal securities
laws. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends
to defend the litigation vigorously.

Two lawsuits have been filed against a subsidiary of the Company and
certain of its officers, alleging fraud and tortious interference. The
actions are based on two contracts between the plaintiff and the
subsidiary, which contracts require all disputes to be resolved by
arbitration. Arbitration proceedings have commenced. The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations.

The former majority shareholder of a company acquired by a subsidiary of
the Company instigated arbitration proceedings against the Company and
two of its subsidiaries, alleging the subsidiaries acted to frustrate
the "earn-out" provisions of the acquisition agreement and thereby
precluding him from receiving, or alternatively, reducing the sum to
which he was entitled to receive. He also alleges his employment
agreement was wrongfully terminated. The claim for arbitration alleges
direct charges in excess of $5,000 and requests punitive damages, treble
damages and attorneys fees. The Company and its subsidiaries have
responded to the demand, denying liability and filed a counterclaim for
$1,000 for misrepresentations. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims.


MICROSOFT CORP: Cable News Network Coverage On Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcast on November 8, 1999 on CNN

    DEBORAH MARCHINI, CNN ANCHOR: Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling
against Microsoft was pretty tough, the company didn't win a point, and
my next guest says the bad news for the company is just beginning.

With a closer look, I'm joined by Greg Valliere, political economist at
Charles Schwab Washington Research Group.

Come on, Greg, it doesn't get much worse than this.

    GREG VALLIERE, POLITICAL ECONOMIST, CHARLES SCHWAB WASHINGTON
RESEARCH GROUP: It could, it could. I think the worst fear for the
company has to be all of those lovable lawyers out there, who have been
picking over the bones of the tobacco companies and HMOs and gun
manufacturers. I think if this judge says there's antitrust violations,
which is very likely, that could open the floodgates for lawsuits
against Microsoft.

    MARCHINI: You're talking about class-action suits? States and
consumers were harmed?

    VALLIERE: Sure,states, local governments, competitors of Microsoft,
I think they could then sue. To me, that's the most compelling reason
for Microsoft to try to settle. If I were advising Bill Gates this
morning, he hasn't asked for my opinion, but if I were advising him I'd
say: You've really got to think about a settlement because this could
get worse in the courts.

    MARCHINI: The damages, though, can't be of the same order of
magnitude over the many years and the severe health impact of, say,
tobacco, for example. Arguably, consumers were harmed, but we're talking
about dollars and cents, not lives.

    VALLIERE: Right. And proving damages is an important point. I think
the competitors, probably, would have a good case, but real quick
digression. I think there's a real problem in this country with lawyers
now out of control with these lawsuits, getting enormous fees if they
win. I think Congress may have to look at legal-tort reform at some
point. But I think that Microsoft could become a very ripe target for
all of these lawyers if the judge rules that there's been antitrust
violations.

    MARCHINI: We here more from the plaintiff's bar. Meantime, what's
the likelihood that Microsoft and the federal government will settle
this case? Both sides don't sound too optimistic on that point.

    VALLIERE: No, they don't. And I think one of the many fascinating
themes in this whole story is that Microsoft, I think, has been in
denial. I mean, you've had guests on this show talk about how the
government in Tokyo had been in denial on the extent of their economic
problems. I think Microsoft has been in denial on the severity of this
case. Now, they're saying they'd like a settlement. I'm not sure how
badly they really do what one, but I think if they sit down and
rationally analyze this, they'll have to try to move toward one.

    MARCHINI: What do you think could be the outcome if there's not a
settlement? Would the government breakup Microsoft, and is that the
worst- case outcome?

    VALLIERE: Yes, they could, that could happen. And if Microsoft feels
they want to wait two, two and a half years to get a Supreme Court
ruling, and maybe they won't get broken up, well, during that period,
there could be a cloud over the stock for the entire time. And if they
think that a George W. Bush administration might drop the case, I doubt
it. I think this case will persist.

    MARCHINI: Do you think that, going forward, Microsoft is going to
have to change the way it does business, even in the absence of any
final ruling by the judge or in appeals court?

    VALLIERE: I'm not sure. Obviously, if there's a settlement, they
would have to end the exclusivity in contracts, they might have to share
some of their secrets in the settlement. But if they decide they're
going to tough it out through the Supreme Court, I don't buy this
argument that they will get squeaky clean and reformed. I think they're
very tough competitors, and they may stay in denial.


MICROSOFT CORP: Lawyer May See Old Case Arm In Antitrust Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
As David Boies continues to press the case against Microsoft, the
"super-litigator" who has represented CBS Inc., radio jock Don Imus, and
New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner will face an unusual
opponent: himself.

In one of the biggest wins of his 30-year career, Boies two decades ago
helped defend IBM Corp. against a 13-year government antitrust
prosecution, as well as dozens of related private lawsuits. IBM won in
nearly every instance. Now, Microsoft is sure to use the case law
developed in those trials during its attempt to ward off Boies and the
Justice Department. "In a sense, David Boies helped build the weapons
that he must now defeat," said William Kovacic, a law professor and
antitrust specialist at George Washington University in Washington. "The
residue of his success back then is a potential obstacle to the
government's success in this case."

It is an ironic turn in a lengthy and high-profile career. Boies is
jovial and informal, known for such quirks as wearing longish hair,
cheap suits, and tennis shoes in court. Amid the nearly nonstop
preparations for the Microsoft case, he fell asleep in a restaurant
booth after a dinnertime interview with The Washington Post. But he has
made a name for himself in the no-nonsense arena of big-money commercial
lawsuits.

Boies, 58, won a $1 billion settlement from junk bond king Michael
Milken and his former employer for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
He successfully defended CBS Inc. on libel charges brought by General
William Westmoreland over network claims about the commander's actions
in Vietnam.

Last Wednesday, only two days before the Microsoft ruling, Boies won
another massive battle as seven of the world's largest vitamin companies
agreed to pay $ 1.17 billion to settle price-fixing charges in a
class-action lawsuit. The firm of Boies & Schiller was lead counsel in
the case.

But the suit against Microsoft, in many ways, carried higher stakes than
any other. Going into the trial last year, the government was battling
the perception that antitrust law built on grocery store and shoe
manufacturing cases was incapable of addressing the fast-moving world of
high technology. Moreover, a 1995 settlement with Microsoft on other
antitrust charges was derided as evidence of the Justice Department's
ineffectiveness.

Microsoft, by contrast, had built a stellar reputation as an innovative
company run by technology whizzes, and polls showed that the company was
widely admired. Its chairman, William H. Gates, is the richest man in
the world. But Boies - brought into the Microsoft case as a special
government employee in April 1998 by Joel Klein, chief of the Justice
Department's antitrust division - offered a compelling challenge to
those perceptions.

He led the videotaped deposition of Gates that tarnished the Microsoft
cofounder's polished image, showing him as evasive, argumentative, and
dour. Boies also presented evidence that Microsoft has achieved its
success through questionable means, not just through technological
prowess. That view was endorsed by US District Judge Thomas Penfield
Jackson in his preliminary ruling last Friday.

Most important, by winning a first-stage victory Boies has rebuffed, at
least in part, the claim that the government and the law are not up to
the task of regulating high-tech industries.

"Every time there's been a shift in the economy, there's been an
argument that says the antitrust laws shouldn't apply to this new thing,
whatever the next new thing is," Boies said in a weekend phone interview
from his home in Armonk, N.Y. "Telephone, radio, television, airlines -
there was an attempt to exempt each of these from antitrust laws. "But
when you applied the antitrust laws, you got much better competition and
much improved service. . . . One thing the Microsoft case demonstrates
is that the antitrust laws are themselves a charter of economic freedom
that applies to almost all economic activity and have a clear and
discernible consumer benefit, regardless of the industry you're talking
about," he said.

Last Friday, Jackson issued a set of "findings of fact," which laid out
extensive evidence that Microsoft holds a monopoly in the software
market and used its power to hurt competitors, which ultimately deprived
consumers.

In the coming weeks, Jackson will hear arguments on what the law says he
must do or may not do, given the facts he has determined. Ultimately,
Jackson could decide that he has little power to impose restrictions on
the way Microsoft does business - or that he can take the radical step
of breaking Microsoft into several smaller companies.

But Boies's work on the IBM case, which lasted from 1969 until the
government abandoned it in 1982, will help Microsoft as it argues the
law before Jackson, antitrust specialists say.

For example, the government argues that Microsoft charged nothing for
its Internet browsing software merely to drive another browser maker,
Netscape Communications Corp., out of business. When IBM was charged
with cutting the price of its mainframe computers merely to drive out
opponents, federal appeals courts sided with IBM, saying that price cuts
were good for consumers.

Similarly, the government argues that Microsoft's Internet browser
should be a separate product from its Windows operating system, and that
the company "bundled" the two so that consumers would have no reason to
buy Netscape's browser.

IBM escaped similar charges, Kovacic said. Makers of tape drives and
other peripheral devices for IBM mainframes had complained that IBM
often redesigned its products so that someone who bought a mainframe
could not use a tape drive from another manufacturer.

Ironically, until taking on Microsoft, Boies had little personal
experience with computers, favoring pad and paper. "We actually have
three PCs in the house here, but they're basically used by my wife and
children," he said. "I prefer to dictate." (The Boston Globe 11-8-1999)


NATIONSBANK: Settles Illinois Suit Over Check Bouncing
------------------------------------------------------
Customers who bounced checks on their NationsBank or Barnett Banks
accounts in recent years may be eligible for payments of up to $ 50. In
June, the banking company settled class-action lawsuits filed in
Illinois, Texas and New Mexico. It agreed to spell out to customers what
its bounced check policies are, and also to pay $ 5 million to an
estimated 1.4 million customers; $ 2 million in administrative fees; and
last but not least, $ 2 million in attorneys' fees.
Eligible customers include current and former checking account customers
of NationsBank from May 16, 1997, to Aug.31, 1999, and of Barnett from
May 6, 1994, to Jan.9, 1998. Last year Barnett was bought by Bank of
America, which does business in Florida as NationsBank.

The administrator of the settlement last month completed mailing forms
to eligible customers and the bank has been running ads, said Gordon
Turner, a spokesman.

For customers who have discarded the paperwork but think they may be
eligible to file a claim, there is a toll-free number, 1-888-811-0449.
Customers have until Dec.31 to get their claims in, said Turner.

The lawsuit complained that NationsBank, when it receives a batch of
checks written by a customer, pays the biggest checks first, then the
less big, as do many big banks. Other banks pay in order in which the
check is received. Or they go by the number on the check. The choice is
up to the banks.

Turner said the bank figures customers would prefer the bank not bounce
big payments for things like house or car payments, rather than clear
for payment smaller checks to people who might not hurt customers'
credit record.

The other side of that coin is that bouncing lots of small checks rather
than a big check results in higher bounced checks profits. NationsBank
charges $ 29 for a returned check.

A hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 26 in East St.
Louis, Ill. (The Florida Times-Union 11-8-1999)


NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released by Stull, Stull & Brody:

Notice is hereby given that on November 5, 1999, a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (NYSE: NWL)
and certain of its officers and/or directors on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Rubbermaid Incorporated, Newell Co., and Newell
Rubbermaid (formerly Newell) during the period October 21, 1998 through
and including September 3, 1999, or exchanged the common stock of
Rubbermaid for Newell Rubbermaid common stock, and on behalf of all
individuals who owned shares of Newell on the date of March 11, 1999,
who were entitled to vote to approve the adoption of a merger agreement
between Newell and Rubbermaid, pursuant to a Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus dated February 4, 1999 (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws through a series of false and misleading statements. As a result of
defendants' false and misleading statements, prices of Newell Rubbermaid
common stock were artificially inflated during the Class Period, such
that persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Newell Rubbermaid's
common stock during the Class Period were damaged by overpaying for
their common stock.

Plaintiff is represented in this class action by Stull, Stull & Brody,
which has extensive experience representing shareholders in class
actions and has served as lead counsel on behalf of shareholders in many
such actions. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this
matter, please contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by
calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com or by
fax at 212-490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017. TICKERS: NYSE:NWL


OSULLIVAN INDUSTRIES: Decries Merit Of Dela. Securities Suit Re Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of OSULLIVAN INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS INC for the quarter ended
September 30, 1999 filed with the SEC as of date October 29, 1999:

On March 24, 1999, O'Sullivan announced that members of its senior
management team, in conjunction with a financial buyer, had made a
proposal to O'Sullivan's Board of Directors to acquire O'Sullivan,
subject to requisite financing. On May 18, 1999, O'Sullivan announced
that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with an
investment group that includes members of O'Sullivan's senior management
and Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co., LLC ("BRS"). The merger agreement
was subsequently amended on October 18, 1999.

Under the amended merger agreement, O'Sullivan will be the surviving
entity after the merger. Certain directors and members of senior
management are participating with BRS in the buyout of existing
O'Sullivan stockholders. After the completion of the merger, the
management participants in the buyout will own a total of approximately
27.1% of the common stock of the surviving corporation. BRS and its
affiliates will own the balance.

The amended merger agreement stipulates that each share of outstanding
common stock of O'Sullivan will be exchanged for $16.75 in cash and one
share of senior preferred stock with an initial liquidation value of
$1.50 per share. Unpaid dividends will accrue at the stated rate of
12.0% per annum and will be accumulated and compounded at the same rate
during the period that the senior preferred stock is outstanding. Some
of the shares of O'Sullivan common stock and options held by the
management participants in the buyout will be exchanged for common
stock, junior preferred stock and options to acquire junior preferred
stock of O'Sullivan.

O'Sullivan will require approximately $357.0 million to complete the
merger and pay related fees and expenses of which approximately $270.0
million will be funded via debt proceeds. The completion of the merger
is subject to stockholder approval, obtaining suitable financing and the
absence of material adverse changes in O'Sullivan's business.

On May 18, 1999, five lawsuits were filed as class actions by
stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to enjoin the
merger or, in the alternative, to rescind the merger and recover
monetary damages. The complaints name as defendants O'Sullivan, all of
its directors and, in some cases, BRS. The complaints allege that our
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger. The
complaints also allege that the price terms of the merger are inadequate
and unfair to O'Sullivan stockholders. In addition, the complaints
allege that the management participants in the buyout have conflicts of
interest that have prevented them from acting in the best interests of
O'Sullivan stockholders and that make it inherently unfair for BRS and
the management participants in the buyout to acquire 100% of the
O'Sullivan stock. In the cases naming BRS as a defendant, BRS is alleged
to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
defendants do not have to respond to the lawsuits until after the
plaintiffs have combined their complaints into one complaint. A
consolidation order was signed on July 22, 1999 by the court. This order
requires the plaintiffs to combine their complaints into one complaint.
However, no date has been set by which the defendants must move or
answer in response to the combined complaint. We believe that the claims
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.


PERVASIVE SOFTWARE: Shepherd & Geller File Securities Suit In Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Shepherd & Geller, LLC announced that it has filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of all individuals and institutional
investors that purchased Pervasive Software Inc. (Nasdaq:PVSW) common
stock between July 15, 1999 and October 21, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements about the Company's true business position, the
demand for its services, its operations, and its earnings. As a result
of the defendants' statements, the Company's stock price was inflated
during the Class Period. Shortly after the statements were issued, top
officers of the Company took advantage of the inflated prices by selling
897,250 shares for proceeds of $ 19.8 million. When the truth about the
Company was revealed to the public, the stock price fell sharply.

If you have any questions about how you may be able to recover for your
losses, or if you would like to consider serving as one of the lead
plaintiffs in this lawsuit, you must take appropriate action by January
3, 2000. Contact: Shepherd & Geller, LLC, Boca Raton Jonathan M. Stein,
561/750-3000 Toll Free: 1-888-262-3131 E-mail:
jstein@classactioncounsel.com or Shepherd & Geller, LLC, Media, Pa.
Scott R. Shepherd, 610/891-9880 Toll Free: 1-877-891-9880 E-mail:
sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com TICKERS: NASDAQ:PVSW


PLM INT'L: May Settle Investors' Suits In Alabama And California
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLM International Inc. and various of its wholly-owned subsidiaries are
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed as a purported class action in
January 1997 in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Mobile, Alabama,
Case No. CV-97-251 (the Koch action). Plaintiffs, who filed the
complaint on their own and on behalf of all class members similarly
situated, are six individuals who invested in certain California limited
partnerships for which the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, PLM
Financial Services, Inc. (FSI), acts as the general partner, including
PLM Equipment Growth Fund IV (Fund IV), PLM Equipment Growth Fund V
(Fund V), PLM Equipment Growth Fund VI (Fund VI), and PLM Equipment
Growth & Income Fund VII (Fund VII) (the Partnerships).

The complaint asserts eight causes of action against all defendants, as
follows: fraud and deceit, suppression, negligent misrepresentation and
suppression, intentional breach of fiduciary duty, negligent breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and conspiracy.
Plaintiffs allege that each defendant owed plaintiffs and the class
certain duties due to their status as fiduciaries, financial advisors,
agents, and control persons. Based on these duties, plaintiffs assert
liability against defendants for improper sales and marketing practices,
mismanagement of the Partnerships, and concealing such mismanagement
from investors in the Partnerships. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and recissory damages, as well as punitive damages, and
have offered to tender their limited partnership units back to the
defendants.

In March 1997, the defendants removed the Koch action from the state
court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division (Civil Action No. 97-0177-BH-C) (the court)
based on the court's diversity jurisdiction, and the court denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand, which denial was upheld on appeal. In
December 1997, the court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration
of the named plaintiffs' claims, based on an agreement to arbitrate
contained in the limited partnership agreement of each Partnership.
Plaintiffs appealed this decision, but in June 1998 voluntarily
dismissed their appeal pending settlement of the Koch action, as
discussed below.

In June 1997, the Company and the affiliates who are also defendants in
the Koch action were named as defendants in another purported class
action filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, San Francisco,

California, Case No. 987062 (the Romei action). The plaintiff is an
investor in Fund V, and filed the complaint on her own behalf and on
behalf of all class members similarly situated who invested in certain
California limited partnerships for which FSI acts as the general
partner, including the Partnerships. The complaint (as amended in August
1997) alleges the same facts and the same nine causes of action as in
the Koch action, plus additional causes of action against all of the
defendants, including alleged unfair and deceptive practices,
constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, a claim for treble damages and
violations of the California Securities Law of 1968.

In July 1997, defendants filed with the district court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. C-97-2847 WHO) a petition (the
petition) under the Federal Arbitration Act seeking to compel
arbitration of plaintiff's claims and for an order staying the state
court proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. In October
1997, the district court denied the Company's petition to compel
arbitration, but in November 1997, agreed to hear the Company's motion
for reconsideration of this order. The hearing on this motion has been
taken off calendar and the district court has dismissed the petition
pending settlement of the Romei action, as discussed below. The state
court action continues to be stayed pending such resolution.

In May 1998, all parties to the Koch and Romei actions entered into a
memorandum of understanding related to the settlement of those actions
(the monetary settlement), following which the parties agreed to an
additional equitable settlement. The terms of the monetary settlement
and the equitable settlement are contained in a Stipulation of
Settlement that was filed with the court. The monetary settlement
provides for a settlement and release of all claims against defendants
in exchange for payment for the benefit of the class of up to $6.0
million. The final settlement amount will depend on the number of claims
filed by authorized claimants who are members of the class, the amount
of the administrative costs incurred in connection with the settlement,
and the amount of attorneys' fees awarded by the court. The Company will
pay up to $0.3 million of the monetary settlement, with the remainder
being funded by an insurance policy.

The equitable settlement provides, among other things: (a) for the
extension of the operating lives of Funds V, VI, and VII by judicial
amendment to each of their partnership agreements, such that FSI, the
general partner of each such partnership, be permitted to reinvest
partnership funds in additional equipment into the year 2004, and will
liquidate the partnerships' equipment in 2006; (b) that FSI is entitled
to earn front-end fees (including acquisition and lease negotiation
fees) up to 20% in excess of the compensatory limitations set forth in
the North American Securities Administrator's Association's Statement of
Policy; (c) for a one-time repurchase of up to 10% of the outstanding
units of Funds V, VI, and VII by the respective partnership at 80% of
such partnership's net asset value; and (d) for the deferral of a
portion of FSI's management fees until such time as certain performance
thresholds have, if ever, been met by the partnerships. The equitable
settlement also provides for payment of the equitable class attorneys'
fees from partnership funds in the event, if ever, that distributions
paid to investors in Funds V, VI, and VII during the extension period
reach a certain internal rate of return. Defendants will continue to
deny each of the claims and contentions and admit no liability in
connection with the monetary and equitable settlements.

The court, among other things, preliminarily approved the monetary and
equitable settlements in June 1999, and set a final fairness hearing for
November 16, For settlement purposes, the monetary settlement class (the
monetary class) consists of all investors, limited partners, assignees,
or unit holders who purchased or received by way of transfer or
assignment any units in the Partnerships between May 23, 1989 and June
29, 1999. The equitable settlement class (the equitable class) consists
of all investors, limited partners, assignees or unit holders who on
June 29, 1999 held any units in Funds V, VI, and VII, and their assigns
and successors in interest.

The monetary settlement remains subject to certain conditions, including
but not limited to notice to the monetary class for purposes of the
monetary settlement and final approval of the monetary settlement by the
court following a final fairness hearing. The equitable settlement
remains subject to numerous conditions, including but not limited to:
(a) notice to the equitable class, (b) review and clearance by the SEC,
and dissemination to the members of the equitable class, of solicitation
statements regarding the proposed extensions, (c) disapproval by less
than 50% of the limited partners in Funds V, VI, and VII of the proposed
amendments to the limited partnership agreements, (d) judicial approval
of the proposed amendments to the limited partnership agreements, and
(e) final approval of the equitable settlement by the court following a
final fairness hearing. The monetary settlement, if approved, will go
forward regardless of whether the equitable settlement is approved or
not.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations of the Koch and
Romei actions are completely without merit and intends to continue to
defend this matter vigorously if the monetary settlement is not
consummated.


PROMISSORY NOTES: Issuers Sued And Targetted For Crackdown On Sale
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dozens of insurance agents in Sacramento and the Central Valley are
targets in a state crackdown on the sale of unregistered promissory
notes that authorities say have robbed hundreds of investors of their
savings. In the most egregious case, about 1,800 people -- including
dozens in Northern California -- invested more than $ 80 million in
promissory notes offered by a now-bankrupt Florida company, First
Lenders Indemnity Corp., according to court documents.

In Roseville, David and Zoe Wiley invested $ 250,000 in the short-term
FLIC promissory notes. In San Jose, Elton and Patricia Krueger put in $
100,000. "We never in a million years would have ever dreamed of getting
involved in something like this," said Zoe Wiley, who with her husband
is now part of a class-action lawsuit in the case. "We have heard of
retired people losing their savings. But until it hits home, you don't
really know what it's all about."

The loss cost the Wileys their dream. They had to cut short their
five-year road trip because they didn't have the money to travel. David
Wiley now spends hours at a stretch talking to other affected investors,
writing letters to attorneys and researching the case.

At issue are risky promissory notes sold to the general public without
being registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In
California, issuers of the notes also are failing to obtain a necessary
permit from the Department of Corporations. "This is a nationwide
conspiracy," said Bill McDonald, enforcement director of the Department
of Corporations. "There's an explosion of these promissory notes being
offered all over the United States."

In all, about 100 orders issued by the department target 44 individuals
-- most of them insurance agents -- and seven businesses. The orders
prohibit the sale of unregistered securities -- in some cases deemed
fraudulent -- by brokers and dealers not licensed to sell them.

So far, 21 states including California and Florida have organized to
tackle the problem.

In the case of FLIC, individuals invested a minimum of $ 25,000 in
nine-month notes. Some invested more than $ 1 million, court filings
show. And commissions paid to the sales agents were high -- often 6
percent or greater. The agents selling FLIC notes -- 28 of the 44 being
served -- were told that the short-term securities were exempt from
state securities law. But McDonald says an exemption cannot be applied
to such risky securities sold to the general public.

FLIC funds were intended to buy portfolios of new and used auto loans.
Instead, the lawsuit alleges that FLIC was a shell corporation and that
the money was used to fuel a Ponzi scheme -- a fraudulent investment in
which proceeds from later investors are used to pay high returns to
original investors.

But the plaintiffs' attorney notes that FLIC could not have "done what
they did without the aid of their lawyers and the two banks" that lent a
perception of respectability to the investments.

The Wileys decided to invest while on a cross-country trip in the fall
of 1996. They stopped in Medford, Ore., to have dinner with the
insurance agent who had written the policy on their motor home, a
40-foot American Eagle. After reading the FLIC offering, the Wileys
invested $ 250,000. They did not know that only six weeks earlier, the
SEC had fined FLIC and two of its principals $ 85,000 for failing to
fully disclose key factors related to the securities offering. Among
them: The investment was high-risk.

The co-founder, Jonathan Pierpont Boston, had a criminal record. Boston,
a.k.a. John Ralph Marsella, had changed his name to Boston after his
1989 release from federal prison, where he had served time for bank
fraud and conspiracy convictions, according to court filings. Boston
today is a defendant in the class-action lawsuit and reportedly is in
Mexico. He could not be reached for comment.

Wiley said he would never have invested in FLIC if he had known about
the SEC action, the level of investment risk, or that a co-founder had
spent time in prison. "I am very conservative," he said. "I had a
profit-sharing plan . . . and when I retired I took that money and
rolled it over to an IRA" (Individual Retirement Account) returning 7
percent.

But the Medford insurance agent told the Wileys that the nine-month FLIC
notes, yielding 10 percent, offered both safety and a better return. Six
months later, the Wileys heard the gut-wrenching news via cell phone
while traveling through Louisiana: Investors had forced FLIC into
bankruptcy. "It was devastating," remembered David Wiley.

By then, nearly a dozen states had taken action against FLIC.

The Wileys had planned to continue traveling and to buy a home for their
retirement. "There was no way we could do both," said Wiley. "We had to
sell the motor home." Now the Wileys devote a room in their Roseville
home to FLIC lawsuit and bankruptcy documents.

FLIC and an affiliated company, Boston Acceptance Corp., are not being
pursued in the lawsuit because of the bankruptcy, said the plaintiffs'
attorney, Andrew H. Wilson. The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court in October 1997 names as defendants Boston, his wife, FLIC's
president and other individuals as well as banks that handled investor
funds as FLIC's "indenture trustees." Bank One of Texas and SunTrust
Banks of Florida "ignored facts that demonstrated the note offerings
were illegal" and failed in their duties to protect note holders,
according to the suit. According to court filings, a Bank One attorney
knew of Boston's criminal conviction nearly two years before the
bankruptcy. "I've been involved in these kinds of cases for more than 20
years," said Wilson. "In these kinds of schemes, there's usually some
professional accountant, lawyer or institution, or both, that give the
impression or illusion of integrity. In this case, it was Bank One and
SunTrust."

Thomas Kelly, vice president of Bank One Corp. in Chicago, said the bank
does not comment on pending litigation.

Pamela Palmer, a Los Angeles-based attorney for SunTrust Banks of
Florida, said the allegations against the bank are untrue. SunTrust, she
added, actually blew the whistle on FLIC when it failed to properly turn
over proceeds from investors.

Meanwhile, the list of plaintiffs who lost their investments has grown
into a file more than four inches thick. In all, FLIC took in about $ 82
million from investors. And plaintiff Elton Krueger worries that many
plaintiffs will recover less than 20 cents on the dollar.

The Kruegers suffered their loss after the hospital where Patricia
Krueger worked announced it would no longer handle employees' pension
benefits. The couple took their retirement funds, instead, to a San Jose
investment center that specialized in retirement and insurance
investments. The investment center, in turn, sold the Kruegers $ 25,000
in FLIC promissory notes. Elton Krueger decided to invest another $
75,000 after the couple began receiving monthly returns on their FLIC
investment. Then the payments stopped. Now the retired Krueger, a former
U.S. Navy jet fighter pilot in the 1950s and an aerospace worker for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is looking for work. "I'm
trying to do some consulting," he said. "I need the funds. I've been
wiped out. My future is not secure any more." (Sacramento Bee 11-7-1999)



QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Reports On SmithKline's CA Suit Over Reused Needles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Quest Diagnostics Inc. for the conformed period of August 16,
1999 filed with the SEC as of November 1, 1999:

On March 22, 1999 the Company learned that an employee at a patient
service center in Palo Alto, California had at times reused certain
needles when drawing blood from patients. The phlebotomist was
immediately suspended and thereafter dismissed. The Company is
cooperating with local, state and federal health agencies to address
public health issues arising from the employee's breach of standard
medical practices and has offered free testing to approximately 15,300
patients whose blood may have been drawn by this phlebotomist to
determine whether those patients have been exposed to hepatitis B,
hepatitis C or HIV.

A number of civil actions, including some purporting to be class
actions, have been filed against the Company in federal and state courts
in California on behalf of individuals who may have been affected by the
phlebotomist's reuse of needles or other alleged improper practices. An
initial provision for the estimated cost of the free counseling and
follow-up blood tests for the affected patients has been included in
cost of services in the Company's combined statement of operations for
the six months ended June 30, 1999, but at this stage the total costs
associated with this matter are not yet determinable.

SmithKline Beecham has agreed to amend the stock and asset purchase
agreement with Quest to provide that SmithKline Beecham plc will
indemnify Quest and the Company for the out-of-pocket costs of the
counseling and testing, for liabilities arising out of the civil actions
and for other losses arising out of the conduct of this employee, other
than consequential damages.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settles Some Claims Over Clinical Billing In Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Quest Diagnostics Inc. for the conformed period of August 16,
1999 filed with the SEC as of November 1, 1999:

On February 9, 1999, SmithKline Beecham plc entered into an agreement to
sell the Company to Quest in exchange for approximately $1 billion of
cash and 12.6 million shares of Quest common stock, which will
approximate 29.5% of Quest's outstanding shares at closing. SmithKline
Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. is a subsidiary of SmithKline
Beecham Corporation ("SmithKline Beecham Corp"), itself an indirect
subsidiary off SmithKline Beecham plc ("SmithKline Beecham plc" or the
"Parent"), a public limited company incorporated in 1989 under the laws
of England and Wales.

The Company is involved in various legal and administrative proceedings
considered normal to its business, including suits claiming damages
arising from the Company's services. The Company is also a party to
legal proceedings with regard to environmental matters.

In 1996, the Company and the U.S. government and certain states reached
a settlement with respect to the government's civil and administrative
claims arising from an investigation by the Office of the Inspector
General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services into the
Company's billing and marketing practices. In connection therewith,
certain affiliates of the Company paid the government $325 million which
had been reserved in prior years.

The Company is also responding to claims and lawsuits from
non-governmental parties, including private insurers, self-funded
employer plans and patients, concerning similar practices as they may
relate to amounts paid by those parties. The lawsuits include ten
purported class actions filed in various jurisdictions in the United
States and one non-class action complaint by a number of insurance
companies that seek damages allegedly arising from payments they made
for clinical laboratory testing services. The ten purported class
actions have been consolidated into one complaint which has been
consolidated with the insurers' suit, for pretrial proceedings, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On July 2, 1999, the District Court Judge presiding over the
consolidated litigation granted, with certain exceptions, the Company's
motions to dismiss (with prejudice) the insurance companies' second
amended complaint, thereby dismissing all of the RICO claims pending
against the Company as well as several of the other claims asserted in
the litigation. Similar claims by several other individual third party
payers have been settled. SmithKline Beecham plc has agreed to indemnify
the Company for the after-tax expense of any similar such settlements
entered into after December 31, 1998.


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Abbey, Gardy Announces Securities Expanded Suit In MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued on November 5, 1999 by the law firm
of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP:

The class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased
Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN/A and RTN/B) common stock has been expanded
to cover March 30, 1998 through and including October 11, 1999.

The Complaint charges Raytheon and certain of its officers with
violating the federal securities laws. The plaintiff claims that
defendants misrepresented and concealed material facts concerning the
Company's operations and misled investors about the size of its
restructuring charge, cost overruns and delays in certain defense
contracts as well as its statements about expected 1999 financial
results.

Excluded from the Class are the defendants and members of their
immediate families, any entity in which a defendant has a controlling
interest and the heirs of any such excluded party. If you are a member
of the class described above, you may, not later December 13, 1999, move
the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class, if you so choose. If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interest, please contact: Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. James S. Notis, Esq. Abbey, Gardy &
Squitieri, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, New York 10016 Telephone:
800-889-3701 or 212-889-3700 FAX: 212-684-5191 E-MAIL: sfearon@a-g-s.com
or jnotis@a-g-s.com


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Wolf Popper Announces Securities Expanded Suit In MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed by Wolf Popper LLP against
Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN/A, RTN/B), and certain of its senior
officers, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased Raytheon common stock from March 30, 1998 through October 11,
1999.

The Complaint charges that Raytheon violated the U.S. securities laws
by, among other things, recognizing revenue on an accelerated basis
without firm payment commitments from Raytheon's customers, and
recognizing revenue on long-term contracts on a percentage-of-completion
basis without a reasonable basis for estimating the costs actually
incurred or that remained to be incurred on those contracts.

It was not until October 12, 1999 that Raytheon belatedly announced,
among other things, that it would be taking a $668 million third quarter
charge with $320 million of the charge relating to "contract performance
estimates." Raytheon's Chairman admitted to securities analysts that
Raytheon's computer systems weren't programmed to produce the
information needed to track Raytheon's long-term contracts. Raytheon's
acknowledgment of its pervasive operating and financial problems
triggered a dramatic stock drop that erased approximately $4.5 billion
in market value.

Any member of the proposed class who desires to be appointed lead
plaintiff in this action must file a motion with the Court no later than
December 13, Class members must meet certain legal requirements to serve
as a lead plaintiff. If you have questions or information regarding this
action, or if you are interested in serving as a lead plaintiff in this
action, you may call or write: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. or James A.
Harrod, Investor Relations Representative WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third
Avenue New York, NY 10022-6689 Telephone: 212-451-9620 212-451-9642 Toll
Free: 1-877-370-7703 Facsimile: 212-486-2093 E-Mail:
rfinkel@wolfpopper.com IRRep@wolfpopper.com


STARNET COMMUNICATIONS: Says Shareholders Condemn Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of common stock in Starnet Communications International,
Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SNMM), have publicly denounced the class
action suits brought against the company by law firms. So far, more than
460 shareholders, most of whom qualify to be plaintiffs in the suits,
have added their names to a petition supporting Starnet and its
officers.

"We believe public statements made by the class action attorneys are
misleading and their accusations against Starnet are without merit,"
stated Ed Starrs, spokesman for the Starnet Investors Group, which
organized the petition drive. In seeking clients, the attacking firms
have issued a stream of press releases containing erroneous information
regarding Starnet's business model and the company's relationship with
its investors. According to Starrs, "Investors believe these
self-serving attorneys are merely trying to exploit Starnet's recent and
temporary misfortunes. Our petition demonstrates that sentiment."

A copy of the supportive petition, which continues to grow, has been
forwarded to Starnet's CEO, Meldon Ellis. According to Starrs, "We
started an independent petition drive because we won't stand by while
avaricious lawyers threaten our company, and we've been overwhelmed by
the response from shareholders." Within hours of its distribution,
hundreds of investors had attached their names to the following
statement:

"As members of the class identified in the class action lawsuits against
Starnet Communications and its officers, we strongly disagree with the
premise of the suits. We were made fully aware of the risks associated
with our investments in Starnet. Starnet informed us of these risks in
multiple communications, including the company's press releases, annual
reports, SEC filings, company conference calls, its investor package,
and through the Starnet corporate website. As a result of these
communications, we fully understand Starnet's business model. Moreover,
we do not believe Starnet or its officers have acted illegally or
irresponsibly, either in the execution of that model or in describing
the model, and its inherent risks, to potential investors."

"Many of us stand ready to offer testimony to prove that the class
action suits are without merit," warned Starrs.

The Starnet Investors Group is an independent organization formed by
shareholders seeking to speak with a common voice on issues that affect
their interests. The Starnet Investors Group is not affiliated with
Starnet Communications International, Inc., its subsidiaries or its
officers. The views and opinions expressed by the organization are
solely its own and based on due diligence conducted by Group members.


TOBYHANNA ARMY: Employees Sue Over Privacy For Psychological Test
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scranton, Pa. Four employees of the Tobyhanna Army Depot have filed a
class action lawsuit accusing their employer of invading their privacy
by compelling them to take a psychological test and posting the
resulting profiles for other workers to see. The complaint was filed in
federal court in Scranton. It said the results were used by managers to
reorganize the workforce. Four employees who refused reassignment, and
then filed suit, were then sent to "dead-end jobs" and denied promotion,
the lawsuit said.

The complaint maintains depot employees were required to participate in
the program, and failure to do so was grounds for dismissal. According
to a statement, the depot described the psychological testing program as
an element of interpersonal skills training received by all depot
personnel in preparation for the transition to a team-based work force.

The test consisted of employees taking written and oral exams which
gauged their psychological makeup. Depending on their scores, the
workers were categorized in different psychological profiles, like
"relater/amiable," "expressive," "driver" and "analytic." The profiles
were posted on workplace bulletin boards, the lawsuit said. The
complaint alleges that during shop meetings, depot supervisors or the
firm hired to assess worker activity announced each employee's
psychological test results in the presence of all shop employees. They
then discussed how that employee should be dealt with.

U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo signed a temporary order
preventing the depot and its personnel from destroying records related
to the case. The lawsuit has been referred to the Department of the Army
Litigation Office, officials said.

The lawsuit was filed by Charles T. Mercado of Taylor; William L. Yobs
of Tobyhanna; Robert W. Pollish of Carbondale and Joseph M. Halaburda of
Nanticoke. Also named in the lawsuit was Competitive Solutions Inc., the
Raleigh, N.C., firm hired to assess workers under their program called
"Team Power." U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo signed a temporary
order preventing the depot and its personnel from destroying records
related to the case. The lawsuit has been referred to the Department of
the Army Litigation Office, officials said.
(The Legal Intelligencer 11-8-1999)


UNION CARBIDE: Kentucky Fd Ct Suit Alleges Radiation Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of a Kentucky plant allege in a Sept. 3 complaint that
their employers contributed to their ingestion, inhalation and exposure
to radioactive materials. The proposed class action includes household
members of the former employees and is said to number 10,000 members
(Alphonse Rainer, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., et al., No.
5:99cv00255, W.D. Ky.). (Text of Complaint in Section C. Mealey's
Document # 15-990922-103.)

Defendants are Union Carbide Corp., Union Carbide and Carbon Corp.,
Martin Marietta Corp., Martin Marietta Energy Systems Inc., Martin
Marietta Utility Services Inc., Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin
Energy Systems Inc., Lockheed Martin Utility Services Inc. and General
Electric Co.

Plaintiffs of the proposed class action include former employees of the
above mentioned defendants, except for General Electric, who worked at
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) in Kentucky from 1952 though
April 1998. General Electric exported highly contaminated uranium
feedstock to the PGDP site. Other class members include household
members of the former employees.

Alphonse Rainer and the other plaintiffs maintain that the defendants
caused and contributed to their ingestion, inhalation and exposure to
radioactive materials as a result of routine operations over a long
period of time. The proposed class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

                         The Proposed Class

According to the complaint, there are at least 10,000 members of the
proposed class, which makes joinder of all plaintiffs impracticable.

Class One includes former employees who assert claims of unjust
enrichment, battery and infliction of emotional distress.

"The Defendants intentionally failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and class
members material facts concerning the nature, magnitude and effects of
the exposure to Plaintiffs and class members through radioactive and/or
other hazardous materials and constituents stored, handled, processed or
disposed of at the site," the complaint alleges. "The employer
Defendants, without the permission of the Plaintiffs and class members,
caused extremely and illegally high doses of radiation, including
plutonium, to strike and injure the Plaintiffs and class members."

Class two includes certain former employees who assert claims against
Union Carbide for negligence, ultrahazardous activity, strict liability
and infliction of emotional distress.

"As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Union
Carbide Corp. . . . the Plaintiff employees and class members have
suffered sufficient bodily injury that they are now entitled to and do
claim emotional distress, including fear of contracting
radiation-related diseases, the increased risk of contracting
radiation-related diseases and future medical expenses in the nature of
medical monitoring," the complaint alleges.

Class three includes claims asserted by former employees against General
Electric. Claims asserted here include negligence, infliction of
emotional distress, ultrahazardous activity, strict liability and strict
products liability.

Class four includes members of households of former employees. Claims
asserted in this class against all defendants include negligence,
ultrahazardous activity, strict liability and infliction of emotional
distress.

Plaintiffs are represented by William F. McCurry of McCurry & Talbott in
Louisville, Ky., and Joseph R. Egan of Egan & Associates in Washington,
D.C. (Mealey's Litigation Report: Emerging Toxic Torts 9-22-1999)


WAR VICTIMS: Japan Plans To Compensate Korean War Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------
Japan plans to pay compensation to 2,000-to-3,000 Korean residents who
served the Imperial Army during World War II, a report said.
Compensation would likely total two-to-eight million yen
(19,000-to-75,000 dollars) for each person, said the report by Yomiuri
Shimbun, quoting an unname d source. Members of the Liberal Democratic
Party -- the main force of the three-party ruling coalition -- would
likely submit the legislation next year, said the report.

The government began paying pensions to former soldiers and civilian
employees of the army in 1952 but it excluded people from the former
colonies of Taiwan and Korea, the newspaper said.

In the 1970s South Korea paid about 190,000 yen per person to the
families of about 8,000 war dead, it said. And in 1987 the Japanese
government agreed to pay about two million yen a person to Taiwanese
nationals who worked for the Imperial Army. "As a result, only Korean
residents in Japan who served as soldiers or civilian employees for the
Imperial Japanese forces have remained without compensation of any kind
from the government," the newspaper said.

Most lawsuits seeking compensation have been scuppered by the
government's claim that compensation to South Koreans was settled in a
1965 treaty in which Seoul waived war reparations.

In August this year, a Tokyo court rejected an appeal by 369 South
Koreans calling for Japan to issue a written apology and compensation
for their treatment under Japan's colonial rule.

The Tokyo High Court turned down the seven-year civil lawsuit filed by
the plaintiffs who demanded the Japanese government pay the group a
total of one million yen. The plaintiffs, including former forced
laborers, sex slaves and army draftees, said Japan violated
international law during its 1910-45 colonial occupation of Korea and
they were owed compensation.

Presiding Judge Nobuo Kawano rejected the appeal, agreeing with a
previous ruling in the lower Tokyo District Court in March 1996 which
declared the claim had no legal basis. (Agence France Presse 11-8-1999)


                               *********


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  * * *