CAR_Public/991110.MBX                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Wednesday, November 10, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 196

                                 Headlines

ADVANCED MICRO: Contests Securities Suits Re Product Misrepresentation
ALPHARMA INC: Resolves CA Drinking Water Case; Settles Superfund Matter
AMERITECH : Chicago Suit By South Austin Seeks To Void Merger With SBC
AML COMMUNICATIONS: Discloses CA Securities Suits Re Insider Trading
FOUR MEDIA: Settles Employees Suit Over Backpay

GREEN SPRING: Faces ERISA Suit In Balt. Over Denials Of Medical Claims
HMO: Phil Fd Judge Certifies Class Re Aetna's U.S. Healthcare Merger
INMATES LITIGATION: Lawmakers Promise Action For MI Women's Facilities
JUSTICE DEPT: Law Firm Hires PR Shop To Lobby Congress To Remove Rider
LA RAMS: CA Ct Reinstates Ticket Holder Claim For Fraud In Team's Move

MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Ruling May Trigger Suits; Trial Set For Jan.
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Employees Allege Of Shortchanging Settlements
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Enters Nationwide Settlement For Sweepstakes Case
QUINTILES TRANSACTIONAL: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Suit In Carol.
REALNETWORKS: Internet Software Maker Is Target Of CA Suit Over Privacy

S.F. UNIFIED: Case On Race In School District To Return To Ct On Dec 3
SMITH BARNEY: Settlement Offers Begin For Sex Bias Case In New York
U.S.: South Korean Vietnam Vets Sue For Compensation For Illness
ZILA INC: Discloses Securities Suit In Arizona and SEC Investigations

* United Health Group Will Allow Doctors To Decide Patients' Care

                              *********

ADVANCED MICRO: Contests Securities Suits Re Product Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Advanced Micro Devices Inc. for the quarterly period ended
September 26, 1999 filed with the SEC as of November 1, 1999:

Between March 10, 1999 and April 22, 1999, AMD and certain individual
officers of AMD were named as defendants in the following lawsuits:
Arthur S. Feldman v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Pamela Lee v.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Izidor Klein v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., et al.; Nancy P. Steinman v. Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc., et al.; Robert L. Dworkin v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.;
Howard M. Lasker v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; John K.
Thompson v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Dan Schwartz v.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Serena Salamon and Norman
Silverberg v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; David Wu and Hossein
Mizraie v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Eidman v. Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Nold v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et
al.; Freeland v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Fradkin v.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.; Ellis Investment Co. v. Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Dezwareh v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
et al.; and Tordjman v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.

These class action complaints allege various violations of federal
securities law, including violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Most of the
complaints purportedly were filed on behalf of all persons, other than
the defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of AMD
during the period from October 6, 1998 to March 8, 1999. Two of the
complaints allege a class period from July 13, 1998 to March 9, 1999.
All of the complaints allege that materially misleading statements
and/or material omissions were made by AMD and certain individual
officers of AMD concerning design and production problems relating to
high-speed versions of the AMD- K6(R)-2 and AMD-K6(R)-III
microprocessors. The complaints seek unspecified damages, equitable
relief, interest, fees and other litigation costs.

The Company has entered into a stipulation whereby plaintiffs will file
a consolidated amended complaint following a ruling by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals on the In re Silicon Graphics Securities Litigation,
97-16204, case now pending before it. The stipulation also sets forth
the period of time the Company will have to respond to the new compliant
once it is filed and served. The Company intends to contest the
litigation vigorously. Based upon information presently known to
management, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of
these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition or results of operations.


ALPHARMA INC: Resolves CA Drinking Water Case; Settles Superfund Matter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an update in the Company's report for the quarter ended
September 30, 1999 of Environmental Matters and Legal Proceedings
included in Item 1 and 3 in the Company's 1998 Form 10-K:

The court has granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgement with
respect to the Drinking Water Act proceeding brought by the State of
California. This ruling is final and binding as the State has not filed
an appeal in the time permitted under applicable law. No monetary or
other penalties were awarded against the Company in this matter.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has offered, and the
Company has accepted, a tentative settlement with respect to the
Superfund matter. Pursuant to this settlement (which must be approved by
the court and is subject to a "reopener" relating to unanticipated site
conditions as is normally contained in settlements under Superfund) the
Company's liability would be nominal.


AMERITECH : Chicago Suit By South Austin Seeks To Void Merger With SBC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit aimed at overturning the takeover of Ameritech by SBC
Communications Inc. has been filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago by
lawyers for the South Austin Coalition Community Council and several
individual Ameritech customers.

The suit alleges that SBC and Ameritech were poised to compete with each
other in Chicago and St. Louis before their decision to merge announced
in May 1998. That merger deprives Chicago residential phone customers of
the improved service and lower rates that full competition would have
brought them, the suit says.

The South Austin lawsuit, which seeks class action status, asks the
court to undo the merger that was approved last month by the Federal
Communications Commission. It asks that a jury try the case.

This filing, made last Friday, is the second time the group has gone to
court in an effort to block SBC's takeover of Ameritech, said Clinton
Krislov, an attorney for the South Austin group. An earlier suit was
thrown out by an appeals court that ruled the merger foes couldn't sue
until regulatory bodies concluded their reviews of the deal.

Krislov said he filed the first suit to protect the group's right to
oppose the merger in court now. Had he not filed the first suit, SBC
might have argued that the current suit was too late and should be
thrown out on those grounds, Krislov said, but as part of the earlier
appeal, SBC agreed not to do that.

Selim Bingol, an SBC spokesman, said that his firm is confident the
courts will dismiss the suit. "It is totally meritless," he said. "This
merger has been reviewed in exhaustive detail and approved by several
governmental bodies. We just want to get on with bringing the benefits
of the merger to consumers throughout Illinois."

The lawsuit argues that SBC's move to buy Ameritech rather than compete
against it violates federal antitrust law. That allegation is similar to
the analysis made by the staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission when
it first reviewed the matter.

In September, the ICC voted 3-2 to approve the merger subject to several
conditions intended to require SBC to open Ameritech's Illinois network
to competitors. An alliance of consumer advocates, including the
Citizens Utility Board, Cook County state's attorney and Illinois
attorney general, that opposed the merger has asked the ICC to reopen
the matter. The ICC will act on those petitions by Friday.

That anti-merger group will determine what legal action it may take
after the ICC action, said Marie Spicuzza, an assistant Cook County
state's attorney. But it is unlikely that they will launch an all-out
assault on the merger similar to the one in Krislov's suit. Instead, the
other merger foes are likely to focus on obtaining an up-front rate
reduction for Ameritech customers, which is their highest priority,
Spicuzza said. "It would be hard to undo the merger now that it's done,"
she said. "Legally, it could be undone, but it would be messy."

Meanwhile, in Washington on Monday, the FCC staff appointed a team
charged with monitoring SBC's behavior to assure the company complies
with 30 conditions imposed by the FCC in exchange for approving the
merger.

Last week, some members of the ICC complained that SBC isn't meeting
certain Illinois conditions that, like the FCC conditions, are intended
to encourage competition in the local phone market.

Also in Washington on Monday, a trade group, the Telecommunications
Resellers Association, filed an appeal in federal court seeking to
overturn a key condition of the SBC/Ameritech merger.

The trade group argues that while the FCC-imposed condition is intended
to promote competition by requiring SBC to sell high-speed data services
through a subsidiary, the effect could be anti-competitive by enabling
SBC to duck requirements that it offer resellers the data services at
deep discounts. (Chicago Tribune 11-9-1999)


AML COMMUNICATIONS: Discloses CA Securities Suits Re Insider Trading
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two essentially identical, purported securities class action lawsuits
have been filed against AML Communications Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors. The complaints allege that
during the purported class period of April 10, 1996 to March 25, 1997,
defendants made overly optimistic estimates regarding the Company's
anticipated financial performance for fiscal 1997 and 1998, and overly
optimistic statements regarding the Company's ability to develop and to
sell new products for the PCS market, all allegedly in order to profit
from insider trading at artificially inflated prices. It is management's
opinion that the lawsuit and subsequent claims are without merit.
Management intends to continue to vigorously defend its position

In the action pending in federal court, entitled Sussman v. AML
Communications, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. 98-2010 CAS (Ex) (C.D.
Cal.), four lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed on June
29, 1998 pursuant to The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995. On September 3, 1998, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
Company responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss
the case. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on February 8,
1999. The court took the motion under submission. On August 2, 1999, in
the light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in In re: Silicon Graphics
Litig., 183 F.3d 3970 (9/th/ Cir. 1999), the court ordered plaintiffs to
show cause why their amended complaint should not be dismissed. On
September 3, 1999, in response to plaintiffs' motion for a stay of any
determination of the motion to dismiss until after a petition for
rehearing in Silicon Graphics was decided, the court stayed the action
against the Company for 90 days.

On October 27, 1999, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing
in Silicon Graphics. The parties are required to submit to the court a
joint status report concerning the status of the petition before
November 19, 1999. All discovery is stayed unless and until it is
determined that plaintiffs have stated an actionable claim.

With respect to the action pending in state court, entitled Sussman v.
AML Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 179776 (Ventura County),
all  proceedings have been stayed until the stay of discovery is lifted
in the federal action. Plaintiffs have informed the Company that they
intend to file an amended complaint in the state action once the case
proceeds. The Company's response will be due forty-five (45) days after
the filing of the amended complaint. The Company intends to respond by
filing a demurrer, which is the California equivalent of a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.


FOUR MEDIA: Settles Employees Suit Over Backpay
-----------------------------------------------
On March 16, 1999, the company entered into a settlement agreement with
the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees ("IATSE")
relating to several matters pending before the National Labor relations
Board ("NLRB"). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company
agreed to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with IATSE which
affects 130 employees and to pay an aggregate of approximately $240,000
in claims for back pay from certain current and former employees. In
consideration of this, IATSE has agreed to cease all negative publicity
against the company and to dismiss all actions pending before the NLRB.


GREEN SPRING: Faces ERISA Suit In Balt. Over Denials Of Medical Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class-action lawsuit filed last month charges that managed
behavioral health care company Green Spring Health Services Inc.
violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
imposing a different set of medical-necessity criteria on a plan's
members than those stated in the benefits package.

Named as defendants in the suit are Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland
Inc., CareFirst of Maryland Inc. and Green Spring, which is now part of
Magellan Health Services Inc. Unlike other lawsuits against managed care
companies, malpractice is not at issue. Potential damages involve unpaid
claims and "unjust enrichment" retained by defendants.

Named as class members in the suit are all persons who are or have been
beneficiaries of an employee health plan administered by Blue Cross in
which Green Spring has served as manager of substance abuse and mental
health services.

The complaint charges that Blue Cross and Green Spring violated ERISA
requirements by not providing an accurate summary of the terms of the
plan and by not adequately explaining why claims have been denied. At
issue is whether Blue Cross and Green Spring systematically deprived
participants of the coverage they paid for by marketing the coverage set
forth in the Blue Cross plans but actually providing coverage of lesser
value by using Green Spring's more stringent medical-necessity criteria.

"We believe that something systematic is going on and that systematic
relief is appropriate," plaintiff attorney Peter Nordberg told ADAW.
As of mid-October, defendants had not been served the complaint and were
not commenting on the case.

The suit was filed Sept.30 in U.S. District Court in Baltimore on behalf
of a Maryland woman and her daughter, identified only as Jane and Susan
Doe. The daughter received medical and mental health treatment at Earth
House, an inpatient facility in New Jersey, from April 30, 1996, to
Sept. 18, 1996. Her treating physician deemed her care medically
necessary, but Green Spring and Blue Cross denied the claims.

In conducting its review of the girl's treatment, the lawsuit states,
Green Spring did not apply the criteria for medical necessity set forth
in the Blue Cross plan, but instead applied its own criteria. Green
Spring's criteria contained requirements in excess of the plan's stated
criteria, including the requirement that treatment be efficient and
cost-effective.

The lawsuit charges that Green Spring never informed plan members that
it imposed a "clear and compelling" burden of proof or its equivalent in
determining medical necessity. Further, the suit states, Green Spring
did not provide specific reasons why treatment was denied, nor did it
give the plaintiffs information on how to appeal the denial.

As a result, the complaint says, plaintiffs and class members have not
received the opportunity for a full and fair review of claim denials.
Further, the denial of claims by Green Spring and Blue Cross has been
"arbitrary and capricious or otherwise contrary to law," according to
the lawsuit.

The hoops through which a Blue Cross policyholder had to jump in order
to have claims paid were numerous and more than anyone could easily
handle, Nordberg said. "We believe this is an issue of concern beyond
the story of this particular plaintiff." (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly
10-25-1999)


HMO: Phil Fd Judge Certifies Class Re Aetna's U.S. Healthcare Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Philadelphia granted class action status to a suit by
Aetna Inc. shareholders, who claim that company officials knowingly
misled them about the benefits of a merger with U.S. Healthcare Inc. In
re Aetna Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action MDL No. 1219 (All
Cases) (ED PA, ruling Aug. 9, 1999); see Corporate Officers & Directors
LR, Feb. 22, 1999, P. 10.

Judge John Padova rebuffed arguments that class certification should be
withheld until plaintiffs respond fully to discovery requests. He also
turned aside protests that the class period is too wide.

The class action was brought on behalf of anyone who bought Aetna common
stock between March 6, 1997, and Sept. 29, 1997. The action also
included two subclasses of people who purchased Aetna common stock at
the same time Ronald E. Compton and Richard L. Huber sold their stock.
Compton was the chief executive officer (CEO) and Huber was the chief
financial officer (CFO) of Aetna at the time of the merger. They were
listed as defendants, along with U.S. Healthcare's CEO, Leonard
Abramson.

The plaintiffs contended that Aetna falsely represented that it would
successfully integrate its operations with U.S. Healthcare's once the
two companies had merged. The suit alleged that the computer systems of
Aetna and U.S. Healthcare were incompatible. The plaintiffs also argued
that Aetna issued misleading financial statements after the merger.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for numerous reasons.
First, they contended that the plaintiffs' allegations did not meet the
specificity requirements set by the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The district court agreed and ruled that the
plaintiffs must amend their complaint to state with particularity the
sources of the facts they allege.

In an earlier ruling, the district court found that the plaintiffs
presented sufficient facts about the merger and the subsequent
operational problems to provide strong circumstantial evidence that some
Aetna officers knowingly made misrepresentations and omissions about the
success of the companies' integration. However, the plaintiffs did not
sufficiently demonstrate that another officer had committed fraud under
Rule 10b-5 because he did not become an officer of Aetna until after the
merger, the district court ruled.

In the class certification ruling, the court said:

* The notice mailed out to shareholders who were members of the class
  is adequate;

* The delay of plaintiffs in responding to document requests is
  understandable, and the delay cannot be all that disastrous since
  defendants have not filed a motion to compel document production; and

* The class representative will fairly and adequately protect the
  interests of the members.

Plaintiffs are represented by Stuart Savett of Savett, Frutkin, Podell &
Ryan in Philadelphia. (Corporate Officers and Directors Liability
Litigation Reporter 9-13-1999)


INMATES LITIGATION: Lawmakers Promise Action For MI Women's Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, promised to take action to protect
women prisoners in Michigan after listening to former inmates and guards
give graphic accounts of life inside the Scott Correctional Facility in
Plymouth. Conyers and U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Detroit,
called a public hearing Monday to learn more about allegations of
misconduct by employees at Scott, one of two women's prisons in
Michigan.

Several former inmates gave accounts of sexual and physical abuse,
intimidation and improper health care. "Michigan has to stop this right
now," said ex-Scott inmate Jamie Whitcomb. "This abuse that goes on is
not pretty. It's the kind of stuff other countries do and get condemned
for."

Former prison employees said guards who spoke up about the abuse were
harassed and intimidated into silence by the prison administration and
guards. Conyers praised the speakers for coming forward. "It's your
courage that gives us the steam that we need to get something done,"
said Conyers, who is planning to push for stronger federal laws
protecting women prisoners.

The state has been flooded by lawsuits and bad publicity stemming from
the allegations. Class-action sexual harassment suits by 32 inmates are
pending in U.S. District Court in Detroit. Several former Scott inmates
were featured in a recent TV report on sexual abuse in women's prisons.

In May, the Michigan Department of Corrections settled a lawsuit filed
by the U.S. Justice Department alleging abuse of women prisoners. (The
Detroit News 11-9-1999)


JUSTICE DEPT: Law Firm Hires PR Shop To Lobby Congress To Remove Rider
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's enough to register on Washington's Richter scale. Williams &
Connolly, the staid D.C. law firm that's known for tenacious litigation
tactics and a tight-lipped media policy, has taken the extraordinary
step of hiring a lobby and public relations shop. What's the issue that
caused the firm to break with decades of tradition and hire The Dutko
Group Inc. and The DCS Group, Dutko's public relations arm, to help
lobby Congress? That would be Williams & Connolly's representation of a
group of current and former Justice Department lawyers seeking pay for
extra hours they logged between 1992 and the present.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims last year,
contends that Justice Department lawyers are subject to the Federal
Employees Pay Act of 1945. The act provides for extra pay when
government staffers work overtime or on holidays or evenings.
Ultimately, the case could bring a multimillion-dollar windfall for the
Justice attorneys--and for Williams & Connolly, which took the
assignment on a contingency fee basis.

Judge Robert Hodges Jr. granted class action status to the plaintiffs
earlier this year. Since then, more than 5, 200 attorneys who once
labored or continue to work at Main Justice or in U.S. attorneys'
offices around the nation have signed on as plaintiffs, according to
Williams & Connolly's Robert Van Kirk. Van Kirk, an associate who is
handling the case, says the deadline for attorneys to opt into the class
is Dec. 2, so the number of plaintiffs could yet rise.

Van Kirk says there's a simple reason why his firm did something so out
of character by hiring lobbying and PR teams: The Justice Department
forced its hand. Earlier this year, Justice lobbyists from the Office of
Legislative Affairs and the Justice Management Division persuaded
legislators to include a rider in the 2000 Appropriations Bill for
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies that
would prevent DOJ attorneys from recovering overtime pay for next year.

While the provision would not affect the ongoing suit in Federal Claims
court, it would effectively bar the lawyers from recovering monies they
expect to earn in 2000.

In a campaign to remove the rider, Dutko's Kimberly Spaulding and Bobby
Watson first sprang into action in June. The lobby team met with members
of the House and Senate, focusing their efforts on the Judiciary and
Governmental Affairs and Government Reform committees. Peter Mirijanian
of Dutko's public affairs branch also has been on the case. (Spaulding
referred a reporter's call to Van Kirk and Mirijanian.) Van Kirk
declined to reveal how much the Dutko teams are being paid for their
work.

Van Kirk says his firm was forced to turn to outside advocates because
of Justice's "back door" maneuvers. He's particularly incensed that the
rider was tacked on to a spending bill, rather than moving through the
regular legislative process. "We're doing what's so unusual for us
because DOJ surreptitiously acted, " he says. "It's fairly unusual for
our opponents to have the ability and the access on the Hill. DOJ turned
this into a Hill fight. It's extraordinary for the department to be
taking care of its people this way."

The department has defended itself in court papers by arguing that
supervisors never officially authorized the overtime hours that
attorneys logged. Moreover, the government has contended, lawyers are
professionals who shouldn't be judged by the hours they punch on the
clock but by their work product.

"The Department has an enormous amount of respect for the lawyers who
work here, and we think that an overtime system would undermine that
spirit of professionalism, " says Ethan Posner, deputy associate
attorney general.

As of press time, President Bill Clinton had vetoed the appropriations
bill that contained the rider in question. Still, it's unlikely the
provision will be stripped from the final bill. But the lobbyists may
have the last laugh: It looks as though DOJ officials may have to endure
congressional oversight hearings next year that will examine Justice's
compliance with the 1945 Pay Act. (Legal Times 11-1-1999)


LA RAMS: CA Ct Reinstates Ticket Holder Claim For Fraud In Team's Move
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A former Los Angeles Rams season ticket holder has a valid claim for
fraud if he can prove he renewed for the team's final season in Anaheim
in reliance on deliberate misrepresentations that the team intended to
remain in the area when it had already decided to move to St. Louis, the
Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled. "Whether a reasonable fan
deciding to purchase season tickets would attach weight to
representations concerning a team's moving prospects after the season
for which he or she is buying tickets is up to the jury to resolve, not
us," Justice Thomas Crosby wrote for Div. Three.

The panel reinstated a portion of Larry Charpentier's suit against the
club, which moved to Missouri after the 1994 season. The justices,
however, agreed with Orange Superior Court Judge Robert J. Polis that
Charpentier failed to plead a valid cause of action for breach of an
alleged contract allowing him to renew his seats for 1995 and subsequent
years.

                             Poor Teams

Nor can Charpentier sue the Rams for fielding poor teams in what the
plaintiff claimed was a deliberate effort to maximize profit, Crosby
said. "Plaintiff's recourse was to give up on the team when he felt it
had given up on him," the justice explained. "It is common knowledge
that professional sports franchisees have a sordid history of arrogant
disdain for the consumers of the product."

While concluding that a portion of Charpentier's suit remained viable,
Crosby threw cold water on the prospects for substantial recovery. "What
is the loss of a 'privilege' to buy a nontransferrable right to watch a
poor football team for one more year worth?" he asked rhetorically.

                          Complaint Amended

Charpentier was allowed to take over as plaintiff via an amendment to a
class action complaint originally filed by a group calling itself Fight
for the Rams, which was held to lack standing because it wasn't a season
ticket holder.

The Rams came to Los Angeles from Cleveland in the 1940s, and played
their home games at the Coliseum until 1979, when they moved to Anaheim
but kept the Los Angeles name, remained in their Los Angeles offices,
and allowed their Coliseum season ticket holders to purchase tickets for
comparable seats at their new location.

The move to St. Louis allowed the team to reap substantial revenue from
the sale of "personal seat licenses" transferrable rights to purchase
season tickets from year to year. Anaheim ticket holders weren't given
renewal rights for the games in St. Louis.

Charpentier alleged that he did not renew his tickets "with the intent
of watching a poor performing football team play for the 1994 season,
only to have the team leave at the end of the year" but rather to assure
that he would still have them "in the future when [he] hoped that
Defendant would provide a quality professional football team product."

That was "the most wishful of thinking," Crosby said in a footnote,
pointing out that the Rams are the NFL's losing team in the 1990s.
In any event, Crosby said, Charpentier had no right to renew for 1995,
when the Rams moved to St. Louis, denying renewal opportunities to their
Anaheim season ticket holders.

While sports teams normally do allow their season ticket holders to
renew annually, and thus maintain the same seats or improve their
locations from year-to-year, Charpentier held only a "revocable license"
allowing him to do so, not a contractual right, Crosby said.

The justice cited a 1992 case in which the Illinois Appellate Court
allowed the Chicago Cubs to limit a season ticket holder to renewal of
half of his season seat account because of suspicions the tickets were
being resold at a profit, and a 1981 Nebraska Supreme Court ruling that
a University of Nebraska football season ticket holder had no right to
renew and thus could not be required to comply with an alleged oral
contract to sell some of his future tickets to the plaintiff.

Crosby also distinguished a 1992 bankruptcy case in which the trustee
was allowed to sell a bankrupt corporation's right to renew Pittsburgh
Steelers season tickets, rejecting claims that the sale violated
Pennsylvania's anti-scalping law. That case didn't involve a move to
another state, and the Steelers didn't contest the argument that the
season ticket holder had the right to renew, Crosby noted.

The jurist also pointed out that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled in a bankruptcy case that a bankrupt Phoenix Suns' season ticket
holder did not have a guaranteed renewal right, precluding the trustee
from treating the purported right as a property interest of the estate.

In the case of the Rams, the justice noted, the season ticket form
contained several references to renewal as a "privilege" and specified
that the games would be played "at the Anaheim Stadium." A season ticket
holder might have had a reasonable expectation of renewal rights while
the team remained in Anaheim, but not otherwise, the jurist said.

The fraud claim, however, was sufficiently pled to survive demurrer,
Crosby said. "We think a jury could properly find that many fans knowing
the Rams were planning to decamp in 1995 would have chosen to cut their
losses in 1994, rather than sign on for another losing season," the
justice wrote. "And assuming the Rams did prevaricate concerning a
return in 1995, a reasonable jury could certainly find the team sold
more season tickets in 1994 than it would have had it candidly announced
the coming move, or at least that plaintiff would not have elected to
spend money 'waiting until next year.' "

But Crosby went on to say that the plaintiff's bad faith claim that the
club injured season ticket holders by sacrificing quality for the sake
of profit was "out of bounds." Charpentier bought the right to watch the
games, not "to watch a good team or to have enlightened (in his opinion)
management decisions made," the justice explained.

The case is Charpentier v. Los Angeles Rams Footbal Company, Inc.,
G20702. (Metropolitan News-Enterprise; Capitol News Service 9-29-1999)


MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Ruling May Trigger Suits; Trial Set For Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft may end up a legal punching bag in the wake of Friday's ruling
as high-tech rivals look for openings to sue the staggered software
giant. Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that Microsoft
engaged in predatory practices and snuffed market competition.

"A lot of companies who think they've been victims of Microsoft's dirty
tricks are going to be looking at (lawsuits)," antitrust lawyer Steve
Newborn says. That includes Netscape, Apple, Intel, Compaq, IBM and Sun
Microsystems, which were named in Jackson's findings. Smaller business
rivals also may sue. And lawyers may pursue class-action lawsuits for
consumers who think they've paid too much for Windows.

"The government has spent millions of dollars amassing evidence against
Microsoft, and now a lot of private attorneys will try to piggyback on
the government's efforts," says Robert Land, a law professor at the
University of Baltimore.

If Microsoft gets whacked by civil lawsuits, the software firm may have
to adopt a more humble stance and settle many of the legal actions. Why?
Newborn says Microsoft lawyers would be handcuffed by the legal concept
of "collateral estoppel," which would bar them from challenging facts
established in the federal case.

But antitrust attorney Kevin Arquit thinks gun-shy companies will "think
long and hard" before taking on the legal and financial firepower of
Microsoft and its 180 lawyers.

Two class-action lawsuits filed earlier this year -- by retiree Charles
Lingo in San Jose, Calif., and software maker Gravity in Fort Worth --
accuse Microsoft of forcing PC users to buy Windows.

Keith Blackwell, CEO of Bristol Technology, says his company may seek a
retrial in light of Jackson's findings. The tiny software firm lost its
trial in July after failing to convince a jury that Microsoft
monopolized the desktop market. Software maker Caldera of Orem, Utah,
has accused Microsoft of destroying Caldera's operating system to
preserve the dominance of Windows. Caldera's Lyle Ball says the firm
thinks it has enough evidence to win its trial -- set for Jan. 17 in
federal court in Salt Lake City -- regardless of Jackson's ruling.
"We're eager for our day in court," Ball says. (USA Today 11-9-1999)

AP Online November 09 says that the federal judge's finding is not
legally binding until a final verdict is rendered, which could be years.
But antitrust experts said Monday that even before an outcome is
reached, opponents in other suits are likely to use the monopolist brand
to bolster their cases. ''Clearly, the strength of the court's language
and the fact that the court found for the government on virtually every
issue is going to have a widespread impact,'' said Jack Nadler, an
antitrust and regulatory attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's stinging opinion against Microsoft on
Friday contains juicy tidbits for lawyers considering suits on behalf of
software users, legal experts said.

In the first such case to emerge, a small New York advertising company
took legal action late Monday accusing Microsoft of abusing its software
monopoly to overcharge for a computer upgrade to Windows 98. The filing
by Seastrom Associates Ltd. in state Supreme Court in lower Manhattan,
seeks class-action status to represent thousands of New York state
customers.

Jackson apparently left open a door for such actions in his opinion. He
cites Microsoft's own study to show that Microsoft's monopoly power gave
it ''substantial discretion'' to raise prices. The November 1997 study
''reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to
Windows 98'' operating system from Windows 95 but instead charged $89
because it was the ''revenue-maximizing price,'' Jackson wrote.

Such figures could be used as a basis by plaintiffs to calculate
damages, said Robert Litan, director of economic studies at Washington
think tank Brookings Institution and a former senior Justice Department
official in the antitrust division.

U.S. law allows for plaintiffs to sue for treble damages, which in this
instance would mean three times $40, the perceived overcharge, or $120
per litigant. Including claims for damages, class-action lawsuits
brought on behalf of thousands of people could potentially seek many
millions or even billions of dollars. ''The judge more or less invited
(private lawsuits),'' Litan said. ''There's likely to be a bunch of them
after the (final) ruling comes down.''

The Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft said through a spokesman it doesn't
believe the judge's finding by itself will have an immediate impact
because, until a final verdict is rendered, litigants can't use the
ruling to build a legal foundation for a case. The finding of fact also
could be withdrawn as a result of a Microsoft settlement with the
government or a victory upon appeal. ''The findings of fact are just one
step in this long process,'' said Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan.

But even before a final verdict, experts said, lawyers are likely to
test the waters in court. Microsoft's rivals, long reticent to offend
the world's largest software maker, also may become emboldened.

Netscape, which makes the Internet browser at the center of the
government's antitrust case, ''really jumps out as the plaintiff with
the most to gain in a (followup) lawsuit,'' said Andy Gavel, a professor
of antitrust law at Howard University School of Law in Washington, D.C.

Netscape was sold to America Online Inc. early this year after its
Navigator browser business withered in the face of Microsoft's Internet
Explorer browser, which it gave away as part of Windows 98. Even if AOL
doesn't sue on behalf of Netscape, it could use the threat of such
litigation as leverage in negotiations with Microsoft, Gavel said.

AOL has agreed to use Microsoft's browser in its online service; in
exchange, Microsoft displays AOL's icon in Windows personal computers.
AOL could push to use both Netscape's and Microsoft's browser without
removing its icon from PCs, Gavel said. An AOL spokesman declined to
comment.

Microsoft also could face a tougher timebattling ongoing lawsuits, which
include actions by software rival Caldera Inc., computer maker Sun
Microsystems Inc., and the Blue Mountain electronic greeting card
company.

Caldera sued Microsoft for allegedly building technical glitches into
its Windows software to prevent it from being compatible with Caldera's
DR-DOS operating system. The case goes to trial in January; Microsoft
denies these charges. ''There are some findings that I believe are
directly relevant to our case,'' said Caldera lawyer Steve Hill. ''Those
findings read like they came out of our experts' report.''
Microsoft's Cullinan said the issues in the government's antitrust case
were unrelated to Caldera's claims, and therefore did not pose a threat
to Microsoft in court.

According to Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) November 9, the lack of
faith in Microsoft's trustworthiness implied by Jackson's ruling could
hurt chances for a less severe punishment -- or even for a settlement
offer -- that relied on a company pledge of some future behavior toward
rivals in the technology industry. The judge could order remedies up to
or including a breakup of the company in the next phase of the case
unless a settlement is agreed to in the meantime.

The ruling, issued after Friday's market close, roiled financial markets
when they reopened on Monday. Microsoft plunged as much as 13 percent,
gyrated throughout the day, then ended up down only $ 1.63, or 1.8
percent, to $ 89.94. Other technology firms soared, however. Analysts
said the ruling appears to boost the prospects of other software makers.
Those firms could benefit tremendously if Jackson orders that Microsoft
be broken up into smaller companies, the most severe of the punishments
he can consider. Even if less-severe steps are taken, other firms should
find it easier to compete against Microsoft.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Employees Allege Of Shortchanging Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Its reputation already tarnished by deceptive life insurance sales
practices, The Prudential Insurance Company of America is facing new
charges that it shortchanged the settlements of policyholders who were
deceived.

The charges were contained in discrimination lawsuits filed recently by
25 current and former Prudential employees at the insurer's Minneapolis
office, one of three national centers set up to process applications
filed by policyholders who were wronged by the sales practices in the
1980s and early 1990s.

The Minneapolis employees say they were trained by Prudential managers
not to give the highest rating when scoring the claim of a deceived
policyholder. The highest rating, which was a 3, would mean the
policyholder would be entitled to full reimbursement from Prudential,
plus interest.

Prudential denies the new charges. "We're confident the charges are
groundless," said Prudential spokesman Robert DeFillippo.

Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, the New York law firm that is
monitoring the settlements to wronged Prudential customers, says it had
not seen any problems with the settlement offers made to Prudential
policyholders. The law firm, which brought a class-action suit against
Prudential that led to the settlement, says about 25 percent of
Prudential policyholders participating in the remediation process
received the highest rating.

But Milberg Weiss wants to investigate the allegations and on Monday,
U.S. District Judge Alfred M. Wolin, who is monitoring the Prudential
claims settlement, scheduled a hearing on the matter for Nov. 15. At the
hearing, the law firm representing the 25 Minnesota Prudential employees
will have to show why Wolin should not issue a show cause order that
would allow representatives of Milberg Weiss to interview the employees
making the charges. Milberg Weiss attorney Brad Friedman said he does
not want to prejudge the issue and he wants to conduct a full
investigation of the matter. "I want to depose everyone who's making the
accusation," he said.

In an unusual alliance, Prudential joined with Milberg Weiss in the
request to depose the current and former Prudential employees. Both
parties would report back to Wolin, under the terms of the show cause
order.

Milberg Weiss and Prudential had been adversaries. In 1996, the insurer
settled the suit brought by Milberg Weiss and agreed to set up a
remediation program, setting aside $ 2 billion for policyholders who had
been deceived.

The questionable sales practices include churning, in which customers
were persuaded to use the cash value of an existing policy to buy a
second policy. Customers were told the second policy would not cost any
additional money. However, the cash value of the first policy was
eventually exhausted and policyholders were stuck with one worthless
policy and high premiums on a second policy.

DeFillippo said Prudential joined the action with Milberg Weiss because
it wanted to clear its name. DeFillippo said the employees who brought
the suit were all scheduled to loss their jobs at the end of the year,
as Prudential wound down its settlement program.

Fred Neff, the lawyer representing the Prudential employees, said he
would welcome an investigation into the charges. But Neff said he will
argue in court that Prudential should not be part of the investigation.
"It's like having the fox guarding the hen house," he said.

The accusations that Prudential is shortchanging Prudential
policyholders comes as part of 25 separate sex and racial discrimination
suits against Prudential. The 25 current and former employees are
alleging they were denied promotions or were fired because of their race
or gender.

Mark Cardenas, one of the employees filing suit, said in an interview
that he saw more than a thousand claims from wronged policyholders
downgraded, sometimes to the point where they resulted in no
compensation. He said many of the claims were from New Jersey. "New
Jersey customers were being cheated," he said. "I saw it." (The Record
(Bergen County, NJ) 11-9-1999)


PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Enters Nationwide Settlement For Sweepstakes Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweepstakes: Vollmer v. Publishers Clearing House

Publishers Clearing House has agreed to enter a $ 10 million nationwide
class action settlement in order to resolve charges that the company
intentionally deceives consumers in its direct mail sweepstakes when
offering merchandise and magazine subscriptions. Vollmer et al. v.
Publishers Clearing House et al., No. 99-434-GPM (SD IL, settlement
reached Aug. 24, 1999). U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy of East
St. Louis, IL, gave his initial acceptance of the settlement on Aug. 24.
The mail-order giant sent notification that same day to 48 million
customers asserting that it would reimburse anyone who bought
subscriptions in the belief that the purchases would increase the chance
of winning cash or prizes.

William Low, General Counsel for Publishers Clearing House, said the
company has entered into the agreement with no admission of wrongdoing
and to avoid the burdens of extended litigation. "We're pleased that we
could reach a fair settlement and resolve the concerns being expressed,"
he said.

The settlement comes less than three months after the class action suit
was filed against the company in the Southern District of Illinois.
Thomas G. Vollmer, along with nine other named plaintiffs, alleged that
Publishers Clearing House mailed letters so deceptive that some
consumers believed they were on the verge of winning astonishing amounts
of money.

The class included anyone who purchased subscriptions or merchandise
from the company from 1992 to 1999. As part of the settlement,
Publishers Clearing House agreed to include statements in future
mailings advising consumers that no purchase is necessary to enter a
sweepstakes. The statements will also include an estimate of the average
entrant's odds of winning each prize, as well as additional information
concerning the company's cancellation and refund policies. Moreover,
according to the settlement notice, the company pledged to revise its
business practices to provide additional assurances that consumers fully
understand the character of its promotions and, in particular, that
ordering is not necessary to win a prize. Each class member will also
have the option to rescind any purchase made from the company during the
class period. The proposed settlement, however, has not been met
entirely with open arms.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who has a suit pending
against Publishers Clearing House, claims that the agreement is a "mere
drop in the bucket" in the tens of millions of dollars consumers have
spent in response to the company's sweepstakes promotions. Blumenthal,
along with attorneys general of Wisconsin and Washington, are
considering filing formal objections to the settlement in federal court
this month, according to the Connecticut Attorney General's office. The
millions of affected class members, under conditions of the settlement,
must file a claim or officially opt out of the agreement before Oct. A
final fairness hearing is scheduled for Dec. 20. (The Entertainment
Litigation Reporter 9-30-1999)


QUINTILES TRANSACTIONAL: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Suit In Carol.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Weiss & Yourman:

A class action lawsuit against Quintiles Transnational Corp.
(NASDAQ:QTRN) and certain individuals associated with the Company was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Quintiles shares.

If you purchased Quintiles shares between July 16, 1999 and September
15, 1999, please read this notice. The complaint charges Quintiles and
certain of its executive officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and
results of operations. These false and misleading statements caused the
price of Quintiles' stock to be artificially inflated.

Plaintiff is represented by Weiss & Yourman. If you purchased Quintiles
securities during the period of July 16, 1999 and September 15, 1999,
you may move the court no later than November 29, 1999, to serve as a
lead plaintiff of the class. In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you
must meet certain legal requirements. You do not need to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. If
you wish to receive an investor package or if you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this matter, or if you have any information
you wish to provide to us, please contact: Mark D. Smilow, (888)
593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or via Internet electronic mail at
wynyc@aol.com or by writing Weiss & Yourman, The French Building, 551
Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York City 10176. TICKERS: NASDAQ:QTRN


REALNETWORKS: Internet Software Maker Is Target Of CA Suit Over Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A California lawyer has filed a $500 million class-action lawsuit
against RealNetworks, a leading maker of Internet multimedia software,
charging that the company violated that state's unfair business
practices law by distributing software that secretly gathered data about
users and transmitted it back to the company on the Internet.

The lawsuit, which was filed last Friday, came to light on Monday,
November 8 only hours after RealNetworks and TRUSTe, a nonprofit group
that awards privacy seals of approval to Web sites, announced new plans
to address consumer privacy concerns.

Last week, after it was reported that its RealJukebox software
continually transmits personal information about its users to the
company, RealNetworks publicly acknowledged that the activity was
improper and issued a fix for the software.

RealNetworks' new privacy policy allows customers to give informed
consent before personally identifiable information about them is
collected or used.

The company also updated its Web site privacy statement to disclose in
detail how the software communicates with Web sites over the Internet,
and agreed to a third-party audit of its privacy policies. RealNetworks'
original Web privacy policy was backed by TRUSTe's seal, and the group
said that it was also changing its policies in response to hundreds of
e-mails from concerned consumers after RealNetworks' practices were
disclosed. It is starting a pilot program with RealNetworks to address
privacy issues for data gathered by software as well as by Web sites.

The class action was filed by Jeffrey Spencer of Mission Viejo, Calif.
(The New York Times 11-9-1999)


S.F. UNIFIED: Case On Race In School District To Return To Ct On Dec 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Senior Judge William Orrick Jr. ordered that Daniel Girard
and his firm Girard & Green be paid $1.2 million for winning their
5-year-old class action challenging the San Francisco Unified School
District's racial preference policy.

That was five weeks ago. Usually, when a judge grants a plaintiffs
attorney's motion for attorney fees, that signifies two things: the
plaintiffs won and the case is over. But this is San Francisco and
bedrock liberal notions such as desegregation die hard -- even if a
federal judge has expressed serious doubts about it.

Though Orrick ruled just last week that the "school district has not
attempted to explain to the court why the use of race or ethnicity as
one of several factors in assigning students does not result in an
unconstitutional racial classification," the district plans on asking
parents about the ethnicity of their children in application forms to be
mailed on Wednesday.

That prompted a hearing Monday, where the families battling the school
district sought a restraining order blocking the applications from going
out. Despite his reservations, Orrick refused to restrain the district.
But he warned that "I do want to emphasize that the mere denial of a
temporary restraining order has no bearing on my view of whether the new
plan passes constitutional muster."

He order both sides to return Dec. 3 to determine if the new enrollment
plan is legal.

Girard filed Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District, 94-2418, on
behalf of several Chinese-American families who said their children were
unfairly denied spots in the city's best schools because of affirmative
action policies that ended up benefiting kids of other ethnicities.

The case settled in February, on the day trial was to start, with the
district agreeing to drop the quota system that mandated minimum
minority enrollment. The settlement, at least as far the plaintiffs were
concerned, was supposed to end the district's use of race to determine
class seating.

But the district, led by its outside attorney Aubrey McCutcheon, is
digging in. McCutcheon argues that the district be allowed to use race
as a variable. The agreement said the district "may request, but not
require, that parents and/or students identify themselves by race or
ethnicity at the time of actual enrollment. Any request for racial or
ethnic data will be optional, except as required by state or federals
statute or regulation and shall contain a 'decline to state' provision."
The new applications, the district's attorneys point out, contain a
"declines to state" box, which makes answering the race questions
optional. In addition, McCutcheon wrote in court papers, the district's
"eligibility for numerous federal and state grants are also dependent
upon our ability to furnish accurate racial/ethnic data."
(The Recorder 11-9-1999)


SMITH BARNEY: Settlement Offers Begin For Sex Bias Case In New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning to bring closure to one of the most significant sex
discrimination class action suits ever filed, attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the Smith Barney case announced November 9, 1999 that the
brokerage firm is making its first wave of responses to the 1,950 claims
filed this summer.

According to Mary Stowell and Linda Friedman of Stowell & Friedman,
attorneys for the plaintiffs who along with two former and one current
Smith Barney employee filed the case in May 1996, the settlement offers
made by Smith Barney as a part of the claims resolution process will
range from zero for a small number of claims to as high as six figures
in particularly egregious cases. Smith Barney is expected to respond to
all claims filed up to the November 22, 1999 deadline set by Federal
District Court Judge Constance Baker Motley of the Southern District of
New York.

"Today is a red letter day both for the women involved in this class
action suit, as well as all women who work on Wall Street. We are
pleased that Smith Barney is giving individualized attention to each
claimant," said Stowell. "Although not every woman who filed a claim is
necessarily going to be pleased with Smith Barney's response, we believe
that many will accept the first offer and feel that the company has made
a good faith effort to evaluate her claim," Friedman added. The
attorneys added that they have been pleased with the progress of the
dispute resolution process and believe that real change has occurred at
Smith Barney through its implementation of the diversity initiatives
outlined in the settlement. Contact: The Dilenschneider Group Inc. Kim
Shepherd, 312/553-0700


U.S.: South Korean Vietnam Vets Sue For Compensation For Illness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top South Korean officials were to speak in Washington Tuesday on behalf
of Korean soldiers who fought on the same side as Americans in the
Vietnam War and who now claim the United States should compensate them
for lingering illnesses. A group of 30,000 Republic of Korea nationals
who allege damage from the defoliant Agent Orange have filed a lawsuit
against the United States.

Lawyers representing the ex-soldiers say they believe they now have a
potential "smoking gun" in the case - a memorandum from a U.S. official
in 1966 which they say shows that the United States had promised to
compensate South Koreans and their families for injuries if they fought
in the war.

If it succeeds, the case could have an impact on U.S. liability when
other nations send troops to act as peacekeepers or as combatants in
foreign operations spearheaded by the U.S., such as those in Somalia,
Haiti and Kosovo, said legal experts.

"Korea had no stake whatsoever in Vietnam," said Michael Choi, one of
the attorneys representing the South Korean veterans. "There was a memo
in which it was all spelled out that the U.S. would compensate the
soldiers who went there."

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia last year seeks
damages of $1 billion. According to the suit, some Korean veterans have
suffered the same effects from Agent Orange that some Americans claimed,
ranging from aching joints and persistent illnesses to birth defects in
children they fathered.

South Korea's ambassador to the United States, Lee Hong-Koo, and a
prominent Korean legislator, Rep. Se Jeik Park, were to speak at a press
conference Tuesday at which they are expected to demand that the United
States meet what the Korean vets have called "contractual obligations"
to compensate them.

In court papers, the Justice Department has said that individual South
Koreans have no legal standing to sue the United States. Attorneys for
the government also said the statute of limitations has lapsed even if
there were legitimate claims.

More than 300,000 South Koreans served in Vietnam from 1964 to 1973.
More than 3,000 were killed, and several thousand were injured. Clearly
established international law prevents suing a country for damages
involving the death of soldiers in war.

"If this was just soldiers dying in war, that happens all the time - it
is what war is about," said Stewart Eisenberg, an attorney with a law
firm in Philadelphia that is co-counsel for the Korean veterans. Choi
and Eisenberg said their case rests in large part on what they called
the "Brown commitment" - a four-page memorandum signed in 1966 by then
U.S. ambassador to South Korea Winthrop G. Brown. In that memo is a
passage in which Brown writes that the United States would "provide
death and disability gratuities from casualties in Vietnam" among Korean
troops sent there. At the time, President Lyndon Johnson was looking for
ways to bring others into the rapidly escalating conflict in Southeast
Asia and thereby to limit the number of U.S. ground troops.

The South Korean government resisted initial overtures, but thawed to
the idea of sending troops after the U.S. came up with an extravagant
aid package that helped modernize South Korea's army, paid to equip and
finance the Korean contingent to Vietnam and enhanced existing economic
development loans.

The U.S. did pay some compensation to Koreans and their families after
the war, totaling $10.5 million in death and disability benefits. But
those payments ended well before Agent Orange emerged as an issue.

Carole A. Jeandheur, a Justice Department lawyer representing the
federal government in the case, said the lawsuit is fatally flawed.
"We've moved to have the case dismissed," she said. "This is the kind of
matter that is handled between countries through diplomatic channels,
not legal channels."

The government also noted South Korea had its own motives for sending
troops to Vietnam, and said that U.S. responsibilities described in the
Brown memo were fully met. In a declaration filed in the case, State
Department legal adviser James G. Hergen noted that the Republic of
Korea said in the 1960s it was sending troops to Vietnam as "Part of our
moral responsibility in furtherance of Asia's collective security," as
the country's president said in 1965. Hergen also said the $10.5 million
in death and disability benefits paid by the U.S. in the 1960s was
"greatly in excess of similar benefits that were then being paid (by the
Korean government) to its forces for death and disability." He said
South Korea agreed with the settlement after "detailed and extensive"
negotiations.

Choi said his clients have exhibited a range of symptoms, much as U.S.
veterans claimed in the years after Vietnam. About 200,000 U.S. veterans
filed a class action lawsuit against seven chemical companies that made
Agent Orange. In May 1984 a settlement was reached in which the
manufacturers agreed to pay $180 million. Since the suit did not go to
trial, no specific effects of Agent Orange were proven in court. Choi
said his clients sought recompense from the chemical companies as part
of that suit six years ago, but a federal judge ruled they had filed too
late to be considered part of the class which reached the settlement.

In 1998, in a related suit, more than 1,000 South Korean veterans of the
Vietnam War sued the government in Seoul, seeking $250 million in
compensation for Agent Orange debilitation. (Scripps Howard News Service
11-9-1999)


ZILA INC: Discloses Securities Suit In Arizona and SEC Investigations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 31, 1999 filed with
the SEC as of October 29, 1999:

The Company and certain officers of the Company have been named as
defendants in a consolidated First Amended Class Action Compliant filed
July 6, 1999 in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, under the caption In re Zila Securities Litigation, No. CIV 99
0115 PHX EHC. The First Amended Class Action Compliant seeks damages in
an unspecified amount on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of
the Company's securities from November 14, 1996 through January 13, 1999
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that in certain public statements
and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission the defendants
made false or misleading statements and concealed material adverse
information related to OraTest(R) that artificially inflated the price
of the Company's securities. The Company and the individual defendants
deny all allegations of wrongdoing and are defending themselves
vigorously. On September 10, 1999, the Company and the individual
defendants filed with the Court a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Class Action Complaint in its entirety. It is not possible to predict
with any degree of certainty when the Court will rule on the defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On September 8, 1999, the Securities and Exchange Commission entered an
order directing investigation entitled "In the Matter of Zila, Inc." The
Commission is investigating whether (i) there were purchases or sales of
securities of the Company by persons while in possession of material
non-public information concerning the prospects that the Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee for the FDA would recommend approval of the
OraTest(R) NDA and whether the FDA would subsequently approve the NDA;
(ii) such persons conveyed information regarding these matters to other
persons who effected transactions in securities of the Company without
disclosing the information; and (iii) there were false and misleading
statements in press releases, filings with the Commission, or elsewhere
concerning these matters. The Company does not believe it has violated
any of the federal securities laws and is cooperating fully with the
Commission in its investigation.


* United Health Group Will Allow Doctors To Decide Patients' Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Health Group said on Monday that it was giving decision-making
power over patient care back to physicians, breaking with a
long-standing element of managed care that has infuriated many doctors
and frustrated their patients.

United, one of the nation's biggest managed-care companies, said that a
patient's doctor, not the insurance company, would now be able to decide
without interference whether to admit health plan members to a hospital
or provide other treatment.

That does not mean the company is giving up cost controls. A United
official said the company already relied primarily on analyzing the
actions of doctors and other providers of care after the fact,
determining averages and urging those who do not conform to obey
guidelines. If persuasion does not work, the ultimate sanction, which
United says is rarely used, is dismissal from the company's networks,
thus forcing patients to transfer to another physician.

Like other companies, United also negotiates discounts on payments to
doctors and hospitals. And it tries to minimize expensive hospital stays
by reminding members with chronic ailments like asthma, diabetes and
congestive heart failure to take their medication and closely follow
their doctors' orders.

United, which insures 14.5 million people, including 8.7 million in
health maintenance organizations and other managed-care units, said the
new rules were being phased in nationally.

With the decision, United gets a chance to smooth relations with doctors
and patients, attract more customers and perhaps avoid some future legal
liability as health plans battle a backlash against managed care in
Congress and the states and a series of class-action lawsuits. Those
suits generally contend that managed-care companies misrepresent to
customers that they are getting the best possible care when in fact, the
suits say, the cost of care is the determining factor.

The announcement by United is one of several changes by insurance
companies that analysts attribute to the backlash. United, Aetna Inc.
and several Blue Cross plans have separately offered their members the
right to appeal denials of care to an independent panel outside the
company. The panels would be required in the congressional measures and
are already required in 30 states.

And several big nonprofit HMOs, such as Kaiser Permanente, based in
California, and Harvard Pilgrim in Boston, have long relied on doctors
to decide when care is considered medically necessary.

Physicians and consumer advocates hailed the move by United on Monday.
"It's a response to the consumer and political backlash," said Ken
Jacobsen, a health care expert in New York at the Segal Co., a
consulting firm. "This is a big, significant step." Explaining its
decision to stop requiring doctors to get prior approval for care,
United said it was "no secret that state and federal lawmakers want to
put an end to much of this practice."

But officials of the American Association of Health Plans, a
managed-care trade group in Washington, disagreed that the changes being
made by health plans were prompted by developments like the "patients'
rights" legislation that is awaiting action by a Senate-House conference
committee. Provisions include the right to sue health plans for medical
malpractice, the right to appeal denials of care to independent review
panels and guaranteed access to specialists. Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman
for the trade groups, said the United announcement was "the next stage
in the evolution of health care, the edge of a wave of change." John
Stone, a spokesman for Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., who sponsored the
House bill, said that managed-care companies that turned over medical
decision-making to physicians would not be liable to medical malpractice
lawsuits under the bill.

Republican leaders in the House and insurance company lobbyists have
argued that the right to sue the companies would increase costs for
health plan members. But Norwood said on Monday that his bill would
"very likely result in lower costs." He said, "The best care in the long
run is less expensive than cutting corners."

"This action is historic," said Dr. Thomas Reardon, president of the
American Medical Association. He said it was "a long overdue victory for
American patients and the care they receive." (Ventura County Star
(Ventura County, Ca.) 11-9-1999)


                               *********


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  * * *