/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/991112.MBX                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Friday, November 12, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 198


AML COMMUNICATIONS: Ct Orders For Report Re Securities Suit By Nov 19
BAUSCH & LOMB: NY Ct Reinstates Consumers' Claims Over Eyes Drops
CABLE COMPANIES: Susman Godfrey Sues Over High-Speed Internet Access
CACI INT'L: Milberg Weiss Files Suit In Delaware Over Proxy Statement
CAREMATRIX CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In MA

COLONIAL PENN: Super. Ct Orders To Reimburse Medicare; Accident Claims
DYNATECH CORP: Contests CA Suit Over ADA Merger; Offer Expires Nov. 1
ESCROW COMPANIES: Controller Seeks To Recoup Money For CA & Consumers
GEORGIA DFCS: Death Of 5-Yr-Old Prompts Suit; Keenan Pushes For Reform
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Polish PM Hopeful For Compromise After Berlin Visit

I.C. ISAACS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In Maryland
I.C. ISAACS: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In Maryland
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Discovery Goes On Re Fraud In Sale Of Policies
MYLAN LAB: Faces Securities Suit, FTC & AG's Suits Over Trade Practices
NTN COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit

NYC CABBIES: May Face Suit Over Discrimination Against Black Passengers
PATAKI: Ct Enjoins NY Div. Of Human Rights From Violation Of Statute
RADISSON HOTEL: Alabama Suit Says Unpaid Bills Charged To Employees
RITE AID: Discloses Florida AG's Lawsuit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
SFSU: SF State University Settles Suit Over Access By Disabled

SUBWAY FRANCHISE: Sandwich Shops Face Claims From Hepatitis A Victims
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Doctor Recalls Ordeal Of Florida Smoker In Lawsuit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Industry Tries To Reinvent Itself, Critics Balk
WARNER-LAMBERT: Pension Funds Sue In Dela Over Proposed Merger With AHP
WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL: Alabama Ct Reduces Verdict For Bilking Consumers

YIELD-BURNING: Deal Delayed Until 2000; Time Needed To Verify Mark-ups


AML COMMUNICATIONS: Ct Orders For Report Re Securities Suit By Nov 19
Report of AML Communications Inc for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 1999 filed with the SEC as of November 2, 1999:

As described in the Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal years ended
March 31, 1998 and March 31, 1999, two essentially identical, purported
securities class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company 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

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.

BAUSCH & LOMB: NY Ct Reinstates Consumers' Claims Over Eyes Drops
A class action lawsuit is pending before a New York State Supreme Court,
alleging that the company misled consumers in its marketing and sale of
Sensitive Eyes Rewetting Drops, Boston Rewetting Drops, ReNu Rewetting
Drops and Bausch & Lomb Eyewash. The plaintiffs had appealed the
dismissal of all of their claims by the trial court. On September 16,
1999, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the
trial court's ruling, reinstating the plaintiffs' claims. The company
has moved to decertify the matter as a class action.

CABLE COMPANIES: Susman Godfrey Sues Over High-Speed Internet Access
On behalf of a group of consumers, Susman Godfrey LLP has filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit against AT&T, Time Warner Cable, other
leading cable companies, and their affiliated Internet service providers
(ISPs), @Home Corp. and ServiceCo L.L.C. (doing business under the trade
name RoadRunner.) Seeking injunctive relief and damages, the lawsuit was
filed November 10, 1999 in the United States District Court, Central
District of California, Western Division in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants have harmed more than 500,000
consumers by depriving them of the right to choose their high-speed ISPs
and forcing them to either purchase Internet services they do not want
or pay much more than a competitive market would allow.

"Consumers who access the Internet using 'Plain Old Telephone Service'
have a wide range of choices and the benefits of competitive pricing,"
said Parker C. Folse, III, a partner in Susman Godfrey's Seattle office
and lead counsel for plaintiffs in this consumer class action lawsuit.
"But experts, educators and futurists are all telling us that
high-speed, broadband Internet service is our future, and in that
market, AT&T, Time Warner and the other cable companies are telling us
we have only one choice in the communities they serve."

The other leading cable companies named in the lawsuit are Arahova
Communications, Inc. (formerly Century Communications Corp.); Cox
Communications, Inc.; Comcast Corp.; Cablevision Systems Corp.; Garden
State Cable Vision LP; Jones Intercable, Inc.; Tele-Communications,
Inc.; and MediaOne Group.

This lawsuit takes the position that basic antitrust law gives consumers
the right to choose their own ISPs. It is similar to the less
comprehensive suit filed by GTE in Pittsburgh in that it does not seek
to create new laws or regulations. "We believe that, under established
principles of antitrust law, what many cable companies have been doing
is illegal, anti-competitive, and anti-consumer," said Folse.
"Competition and choice are fundamental to our free-enterprise system.
The complaint we have filed contends that the cable companies named as
defendants are preventing the growing number of consumers who want
high-speed Internet access from enjoying the full benefits a competitive
market would bring."

The lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount for damages. It challenges
current cable practices all over the country, and could make a big
difference in consumers' rights to choose in the future.

Internet users can continue to use their present ISP after they
subscribe to a new high-speed provider through a cable company. However,
they are required to pay for both, and to use the cable-provided @Home
or RoadRunner services to access their established provider.

Consumers wanting more information about this class action lawsuit can
e-mail inquiries to cablemodemclass@aol.com

CACI INT'L: Milberg Weiss Files Suit In Delaware Over Proxy Statement
otice of Filing of Action Against CACI International Inc. and Others
Challenging Misleading Proxy Statement

The following is an announcement by the law firm of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP: On November 10, 1999, a lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil
Action No. 99-770, on behalf of certain shareholders of CACI
International Inc. (Nasdaq: CACI).

Plaintiffs are Parsow Partnership, Ltd. and Elkhorn Partners Limited
Partnership. The complaint charges CACI International Inc. and certain
of its senior officers and directors with violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek inter alia, equitable relief to
enjoin defendants from soliciting proxies for the Company's Annual
Shareholders' Meeting (the "Shareholders' Meeting") scheduled to be held
on December 9, 1999, pursuant to, as the complaint alleges, a materially
false and misleading Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on or about
October 18, 1999, and the 14A Letter supplement or amendment to the
Proxy Statement mailed to CACI shareholders on or about November 3, 1999
(collectively referred to as the "Proxy Statement").

In particular, the complaint alleges that on or about September 14,
1999, plaintiffs sent to CACI's secretary a notice of their intention to
nominate eight persons to the Board of Directors of CACI at the
forthcoming Shareholders' Meeting. . The complaint further alleges that
on or about November 3, 1999, defendants caused the Company to mail the
14A Letter to CACI shareholders which included multiple
misrepresentations and omissions concerning plaintiffs and their
proposed slate of CACI directors. Among other things, as alleged in the
complaint, the Proxy Statement materially misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following:

That Alan S. Parsow ("Parsow"), a general partner of plaintiffs, did not
"greenmail" CACI as asserted by CACI the 14A Letter. In fact, Mr. Parsow
in July and September of 1992, requested that CACI present him with a
similar package given to the Estate of Herbert Karr, the former CACI
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the CACI Board, in 1991 (i.e., a
buy-back at a premium to the market for its shares). As alleged, no
improper motive can be ascribed to Parsow in requesting such equivalent
treatment nor would there have been any impropriety in his arranging
such a repurchase. In any event, the transaction was never consummated.
The complaint alleges that CACI's pejorative characterization is
materially misleading and calculated to inflame shareholder opinion
against Parsow and his potential slate.

That Mr. Parsow never "greenmailed" the Orbit Instrument Corporation
("Orbit"). Rather, in 1991, Mr. Parsow merely participated in an Orbit
sponsored open-market stock buy-back program which contemplated
privately negotiated repurchases.

That Mr. Parsow's proposed slate of directors are not his "cronies" and
it is false that they have "virtually no experience in managing the
affairs of a public company nor in CACI's businesses." In fact, all of
Mr. Parsow's nominees (if he formally proposes his slate) are highly
experienced and successful businessmen.

That the slate of directors nominated by defendants are not
"independent" as described in the Proxy Statement but are in fact
comprised of individuals who, allegedly, will not disagree with any
matters put forward to CACI's board by defendant Jack P. London, CACI's
CEO and Chairman.

That certain of the nominees included in defendants slate of directors,
allegedly, have inherent conflicts of interest with, among others, one
of CACI's investment bankers.

That contrary to the 14A Letter's misleading description of CACI's
financial growth since 1989, CACI shares have underperformed the S&P 500
and the S&P 500 Technology Index by one-third and two-thirds,
respectively, over the past five years.

That contrary to the 14A Letter, Mr. Parsow's urging CACI's board to
consider valuable offers to sell the Company were not attempts to force
CACI to sell itself at prices "below its value."

That contrary to the 14A Letter, over the past few years, Mr. Parsow has
urged the CACI Board to talk to Anteon Corporation, a company which
expressed an interest in acquiring CACI. Mr. Parsow's and Anteon's
repeated attempts, however, have been continuously rebuffed. For
example, when CACI's stock was trading at approximately $ 16.50 per
share, Anteon offered approximately $ 21.00 for each share of CACI
stock. When CACI's stock was trading at approximately $ 19.50-20.00 per
share, Anteon offered approximately $ 24.00 (or more) for each share of
CACI stock. CACI, however, has been, according to the complaint,

That contrary to the 14A Letter, over the last few years, CACI,
allegedly, has received expressions of interest from Anteon, Nichols
Research, Tracor, BDM, Harris Corp., Dyncorp, CDSI, BTG, Wang and Kiewit
Information Systems. Certain of these entities proposed premium offers
to the then-CACI stock price which, as alleged, were not properly

That contrary to the 14A Letter, the complaint alleges that Mr. Parsow's
tenure as a CACI director was successful and beneficial to the Company,
with the stock price rising from approximately from approximately $ 5.75
per share to approximately $ 19 per share.

That contrary to the 14A Letter, Mr. Parsow's departure from the CACI
board was not related to his performance, but, the complaint alleges,
occurred after he confronted defendant London at a board meeting about
an expression of interest from Anteon to acquire the Company, and was
done unilaterally by defendant London without a meeting of the CACI
board's nominating committee of which Mr. Parsow was a member.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin and/or seek other relief with respect to the
Company's solicitation of proxies for its Shareholders' Meeting and have
retained the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
("Milberg Weiss"), and Rosenthal Monhait Gross & Goddess, P.A., firms
which together have significant experience and expertise in, among other
things, prosecuting complex litigation on behalf of shareholders and
investors nationwide. Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
New York Shareholder Relations Department 800/320-5081 TICKERS:

CAREMATRIX CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In MA
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced November 9, 1999 on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of CareMatrix Corporation,
between October 29, 1998 and October 7, 1999, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint charges CareMatrix and certain of its directors and
executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that
the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about
the Company's business, finances, and prospects, and failed to disclose
material information throughout the Class Period in the Company's public
filings and public statements. As a result of these misrepresentations
and omissions, the price of CareMatrix's common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CareMatrix common stock during
the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold
the stock, you may wish to join in the action to serve as lead
plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set
forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than 60
days from November 3, 1999.

Plaintiff has selected Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP to represent
the Class. If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights as a potential class
member or lead plaintiff, you may contact Ms. Nicole Meyer, Director of
Shareholder Relations at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East
40th Street, New York, New York 10016, 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414, or
by e-mail at CareMatrix@bernlieb.com

COLONIAL PENN: Super. Ct Orders To Reimburse Medicare; Accident Claims
The Superior Court has ordered Colonial Penn Insurance Co. to reimburse
Medicare for money the government agency paid to a class of accident
victims injured while covered under the No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance

Medicare had initially paid the claims, and after the insurance
companies were found fully liable for the claims, the government tried
to get its money back. But a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge
said some of the claims were barred by a two-year statute of
limitations. The Superior Court, however, disagreed, reversing the
decision to rule that a six-year statute should be applied. "The federal
government's claim rises under a federal statute, i.e. Medicare, and,
therefore, the federal government was acting in its sovereign capacity
when it sought reimbursement through subrogation," Judge Correale F.
Stevens wrote for the three-judge panel in Coopersmith v. Colonial Penn
Insurance Co. "As such, the trial court erred in finding the state
two-year statue of limitations applicable."

The appeal was filed on behalf the U.S. government and each class
members. Chimicles & Tikellis attorney Morris M. Shuster represents the
class and said the decision could cost Colonial Penn and several other
insurance companies in companion cases "many millions of dollars." James
T. Moughan of Brit t Hankins Schaible & Moughan, who represents Colonial
Penn in the case, said he was very disappointed with the decision. He
said he and the other defense lawyers need to look at their options for
the next step and have not decided on whether to appeal.

                              Original Claims

The class action was centered on claims brought by claimants who had
medical expenses arising from injuries they sustained in automobile
accidents after Dec. 5, 1980.All of the class members were eligible to
receive basic loss benefits under their no-fault insurance policies.
(The No-Fault Insurance Act was replaced by Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Act in 1984.) The plaintiffs were also eligible to
receive Medicare benefits to compensate their injuries.

The insurance companies along with Medicare paid all the plaintiffs'
medical and other accident-related expenses. The insurance companies
paid excess medical and non-medical "basic loss" expenses but argued
that Medicare was the primary insurer for the medical expenses.
"Consequently, the insurers made no payment for medical expenses until a
Medicare disposition was received, and then only to the extent that
Medicare had not paid," Stevens wrote. The class members then sued the
insurance companies to recover the unpaid no-fault medical benefits and
any interest that had accrued.

In addition to Colonial Penn, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and Allstate Insurance Co. were all
sued. A trial court judge granted summary judgment to the class of
plaintiffs in Collins v. Allstate Ins. Co., and on appeal, the Superior
Court affirmed, ruling that the insurance companies were primarily
liable and Medicare was secondarily liable. "As such, we held that the
insurers were liable to the plaintiffs for the full amount of expenses
paid by Medicare on behalf of the plaintiffs, to their respective policy
limits," Stevens wrote.The court also ordered the plaintiffs to
reimburse the Medicare Trust Fund after receiving payment from the
insurance companies. The state Supreme Court affirmed that decision
without issuing an opinion.

                           Statute of Limitations

On Jan. 3, 1996, the common pleas court certified a mandatory class of
Colonial Penn insureds for whom the insurance company had refused to pay
medical bills. The discovery process began so the parties could survey
the damage."[But] during the process, it became clear that the amount of
damages to be paid by Colonial Penn depended upon whether the state
two-year statute of limitations under the No-Fault Act [was] applicable
or whether the federal six-year statute of limitations ... [was]
applicable," Stevens wrote. The federal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section
2415(a), would have allowed the government to sue Colonial Penn for
damages under a private contract. The government, on behalf of Medicare,
did not file a claim under the federal statute but instead sought
reimbursement by means of subrogation. If the two-year statute was the
correct statute to use, some of the claims would have been time-barred,
but if the six-year statute was applicable, all class claims were timely
filed. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment to determine
which statute was applicable. Also, class member Albert Coopersmith and
each class member filed a joint motion for partial summary judgment on
behalf of the government.

All the insurance companies were opposed to this joint motion, but only
Colonial Penn filed a cross-motion for summary judgment using the class
claim of Esther Schofield as a test case. Schofield's accident happened
in 1981, but she did not file her lawsuit until 1984. Colonial Penn
argued that her case and others like it were time-barred under the state
two-year statute of limitations.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Stephen E. Levin agreed with
Colonial Penn that the two-year statute was applicable and therefore
certain claims were time-barred. "Specifically, the trial court
concluded that Ms. Schofield's claim was subject to the two-year statute
of limitations ...; that the federal government had an equitable right
to subrogation from Ms. Schofield, and, therefore, the federal
government 'stood in the shoes of Ms. Schofield for statute of
limitations purposes,'" Stevens wrote. The trial court also decided that
the statute started running when the class action was filed.

The Superior Court, however, disagreed with this line of reasoning. It
cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1938 decision in Guaranty Trust Co. v.
U.S., which determined that when the government as an entity is involved
in a claim it does not give up its "governmental authority" to become
subject to a state statute of limitations. The Superior Court said that
because the government's claim was under a federal statute when it
sought subrogation, the claim was therefore controlled by a six-year
statute of limitations. The appeals court also determined that the
statute of limitations begins to run when "the government acquires an
action," which in this case meant the statute began to run when Medicare
made any payments on the accident claims. "When the payment was made,
the federal government could have filed a lawsuit in the lower court
contesting whether it was primarily or secondarily liable for the
medical expenses at issue," Stevens wrote. "As such, the trial court
erred in concluding that the limitations period commenced when the class
action was filed in this case." The Superior Court reversed the trial
court's decision and ordered it to enter summary judgment for the
plaintiffs.(Copies of the 11-page opinion in Coopersmith v. Colonial
Penn Insurance Co., PICS NO. 99-2094, are available from The Legal
Intelligencer. Please refer to the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service
order form on Page 9.) (The Legal Intelligencer 11-11-1999)

DYNATECH CORP: Contests CA Suit Over ADA Merger; Offer Expires Nov. 1
Report of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1999
filed with the SEC as of November 4, 1999:

On September 7, 1999, the Company and Applied Digital Access, Inc.
("ADA") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger. Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, a subsidiary of the Company commenced a cash tender
offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of ADA's common stock at
a price of $5.37 per share. On October 1, 1999, the Company was served
with a class action lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder of ADA. The
lawsuit was filed in California state court and alleges that the Company
"aided and abetted" ADA and certain members of its board of directors in
breaching their fiduciary duties to ADA's stockholders in connection
with the tender offer. On October 29, 1999 the San Diego Superior Court
denied a motion for preliminary injunction, which was sought to enjoin
the tender offer by the Company for all ADA's shares and the proposed
merger of ADA with the Company. In the Company's opinion, this lawsuit
and four similar lawsuits filed against ADA have no merit and the
Company intends to vigorously defend against them.

The offer expired on November 1, 1999, at which time in excess of 90% of
ADA's outstanding shares were validly tendered and not withdrawn, which
the Company accepted for purchase. The Company anticipates promptly
filing a short-form merger certificate under Delaware law pursuant to
which (1) ADA will become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company and (2) all remaining public stockholders of ADA will be
entitled to receive $5.37 in cash per share.

ESCROW COMPANIES: Controller Seeks To Recoup Money For CA & Consumers
State Controller Kathleen Connell said Wednesday that ongoing audits
into escrow companies operating in the state have determined the
industry has withheld as much as $ 500 million from California home
buyers during three decades. "We have found . . . an industry-wide
practice of pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars from unsuspecting
home buyers," Connell told members of the National Women's Political
Caucus of Ventura County. "These are hard-earned dollars people have set
aside to buy homes."

In May, her office filed a class-action lawsuit against major escrow and
title insurance companies seeking to recoup escrow money on behalf of
the state and consumers. "Our auditors have uncovered widespread and
systematic illegal business practices which suggest that escrow and
title companies have been illegally holding dormant and unclaimed escrow
funds," Connell said Wednesday.

The title companies being audited include American Title Co., Chicago
Title Co., Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., First American Title
Co., Old Republic Title Co., Gateway Title Co., Lawyers Titles Co.,
United Title Co. and Universal Title Co. All have offices in Ventura

Since the suit was filed, two of these companies--American Title and
Chicago Title--plus three escrow companies that also conduct business in
Ventura County have voluntarily remitted $ 860,000 to Connell's office.
"We anticipate that this payment, while commendable, is just the tip of
the iceberg," shesaid.
Other representatives of the escrow industry have repeatedly denied the

By month's end, Connell said, she will release the names of statewide
customers who may be owed funds. "Anyone who has ever employed the
services of an escrow agent in any real estate or business transaction
in California could be entitled to moneys recovered," Connell said. (Los
Angeles Times 11-11-1999)

GEORGIA DFCS: Death Of 5-Yr-Old Prompts Suit; Keenan Pushes For Reform
A lawsuit filed Wednesday on behalf of a child beaten to death could put
Georgia on a road that other states' child protection systems have been
forced to take. Last year's death of 5-year-old Terrell Peterson could
have been prevented if social workers assigned to his case had done
their jobs, the Keenan Law Firm charged in its suit against Georgia's
child welfare agency. To try to prevent further deaths of children known
to child protective services workers, lawyer Don Keenan is pushing to
create an ombudsman office to oversee daily operations of the state
Division of Family and Children Services. "The system has to be
changed," Keenan said Wednesday at a news conference. "Terrell has got
to be the last little child who dies."

Nationwide, a growing number of child welfare agencies are being sued
for failing to protect some of the children under their care. As a
result of lawsuits like Keenan's, courts have ordered about 20 child
welfare systems to change the way they do business, said Marcia Robinson
Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights. Her agency has won
class-action suits against seven of them, including in Washington, where
in 1995 a federal court appointed a receiver to run the child welfare

Keenan said he took the Peterson case without pay in hopes of better
protecting abused children under the state's protective watch. Before
Terrell was beaten to death, state child welfare workers received eight
complaints of alleged abuse and neglect of him or his siblings.
Terrell's grandmother and aunt, as well as the aunt's boyfriend, face
trials next year on murder charges. The two women may face the death
penalty. But Keenan said that is not enough. Rather, he said, "when an
agency is as out-of-control and as untrustworthy as this is, it's got to
be taken over."

State DFACS officials have said they cannot comment because of the
litigation. But supporters say the vast majority of child protective
services workers are caring people who are underpaid and overworked.
Often they labor under difficult circumstances, facing complex family
situations, too few resources and unsupportive judges.

Keenan said he hopes through the lawsuit to win the support of Gov. Roy
Barnes and the Legislature for a state-funded ombudsman office that
would have full subpoena and prosecution powers. The office would act
independently as a children's advocate "to make sure that (the child
welfare agency) follows the law and protects children," Keenan said.

A bill to create a state ombudsman for the protection of children was
introduced this year by Rep. Georganna Sinkfield (D-Atlanta), who chairs
the House Children and Youth Committee.

If the state refuses to create that advocacy agency, Keenan said he
would press the court to hold DFACS in receivership, similar to what
some federal judges have done with state prisons deemed unfit. If the
state and court resist, Keenan said he would fight before a jury for the
largest settlement possible to fund an independent advocacy group, such
as Lowry's, that would hold child welfare systems' feet to the fire.
"Whether it's an ombudsman or a receiver, you need to have someone
watching all the time," Lowry said.

Lowry said enforcement of any court order is key. "The question is the
degree to which the lawyers are willing to go back time after time to
court," she said. "The systems have been bad for a very long time, and
turning them around does not happen overnight."

Lawsuits elsewhere have resulted in a variety of reforms, Lowry said.
They often require smaller caseloads for child protective workers, more
pay and better training. The court order covering the District of
Columbia's child protection system covers all operations, she said. New
Mexico's is narrower and deals with adoption while Kansas City's focuses
on children in foster care. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Polish PM Hopeful For Compromise After Berlin Visit
Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek said Thursday that German leaders are
''showing understanding'' about Warsaw's objection to the way Poles are
treated in talks on compensating Nazi-era forced laborers. ''Things are
going in the right direction,'' the PAP news agency quoted Buzek as
saying early Thursday after he returned from Berlin. ''German
authorities are showing understanding for a complex solution of the
problem of compensating forced laborers of the Third Reich.''

Buzek visited Berlin to join Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at the opening
of a photo exhibition, ''The Gates of Freedom: From Solidarity to German
Reunification,'' as part of this week's observances of the 10th
anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

During talks with Schroeder and German President Johannes Rau, Buzek
raised Poland's objections to excluding agricultural workers from a
proposed compensation fund for Nazi forced laborers. An estimated
220,000 Poles forced to work on German farms by the Nazis are still
alive in Poland.

The next round of talks on the plan are scheduled for Tuesday and
Wednesday in Bonn, Germany.

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 at least twice that

Buzek said he and Schroeder did not discuss details of the proposal or
levels of compensation in the plan because it ''depends on German
industry.'' (AP Worldstream 11-11-1999)

I.C. ISAACS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In Maryland
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 November
10, 1999, in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
I.C. Isaacs & Company, Inc. (Nasdaq: ISAC) between December 17, 1997,
and November 11, 1998, inclusive, including all persons who purchased
the common stock of Isaacs pursuant or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") on December 17, 1997.

The complaint charges Isaacs and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges
that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operations which artificially
inflated the price of Issacs common stock during the Class period. In
addition, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO contained false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations
and future prospects.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firms of Milberg Weiss, Stull Stull
& Brody, Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, Jr. and Tydings & Rosenberg. If
you are a member of the class described above you may, not later than
sixty days from November 10, 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 Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 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 our website at www.milberg.com TICKERS:

I.C. ISAACS: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In Maryland
The following was announced November 10, 1999 by Stull, Stull & Brody:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed on November
10, 1999, in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland on behalf all persons who purchased the common stock of I.C.
Isaacs & Company, Inc.(NASDAQ:ISAC) between December 17, 1997 and
November 11, 1998.

The complaint alleges that Isaacs and certain officers and directors of
Isaacs during the Class Period violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements in connection with Isaacs' initial public offering on
December 17, 1997 regarding the products, business operations and
prospects of Isaacs. These materially misleading statements deceptively
indicated that Isaacs was poised to expand its channels of distribution
and product offerings while failing to disclose that: large segments of
the Boss line of clothing offered by Isaacs were not profitable and had
no potential for near-term profitability; sales of Isaacs' Beverly Hills
Polo Club line of women's sportswear were rapidly declining; Isaacs'
brands were losing market appeal; and that Isaac did not have the proper
infrastructure in place to execute its business plan.

Plaintiffs is represented by, among others, the law firm of Stull, Stull
& Brody. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than sixty days from November 10, 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 Aaron 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

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Discovery Goes On Re Fraud In Sale Of Policies
Report of Lincoln International Corp. for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 1999 filed with the SEC as of November 3, 1999:

With the recent filing of a lawsuit alleging fraud in the sale of
interest sensitive universal and whole life insurance policies, Lincoln
Life now has three such actions pending. While they each seek class
action status, the court has not certified a class in any of these
cases. Two other similar lawsuits have been resolved and dismissed.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and penalties for themselves and on
behalf of the putative class. While the relief sought in these cases is
substantial, the cases are in the discovery stages of litigation, and it
is premature to make assessments about potential loss, if any.
Management intends to defend these suits vigorously. The amount of
liability, if any, which may arise as a result of these suits cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time.

MYLAN LAB: Faces Securities Suit, FTC & AG's Suits Over Trade Practices
Report of the company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1999
filed with the SEC as of November 4, 1999:

In December 1998, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed suit in
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company.
The FTC's complaint alleges the Company engaged in restraint of trade,
monopolization, attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize,
arising out of certain agreements involving the supply of raw materials
used to manufacture two drugs. The FTC also sued in the same case the
foreign supplier of the raw materials, the supplier's parent company and
its United States distributor. Under the terms of the agreements related
to these raw materials, the Company has agreed to indemnify these

The Company is also a party to other suits involving the Attorneys
General from 33 states and more than 20 putative class actions that
allege the same conduct alleged in the FTC suit as well as alleged
violations of state consumer protection laws. A qui tam action was
commenced by a private party in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina purportedly on behalf of the United States alleging
violations of the False Claims Act and other statutes. The relief sought
by the FTC includes an injunction barring the Company from engaging in
the challenged conduct, recision of certain agreements and disgorgement
in excess of $120,000,000.

The states and private parties seek similar relief, treble damages and
attorneys' fees.

In addition, a class action suit was filed alleging violations of
federal securities laws by the Company and certain directors and
officers of the Company. Without specifying a dollar amount, the suit
seeks compensatory damages.

The Company had filed motions to dismiss the FTC complaint, significant
portions of the State Attorneys General complaint and the federal
securities case. In July 1999, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the FTC complaint. The Company filed a motion requesting the
Court to certify its ruling with respect to the jurisdictional issue for
expedited appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. This motion was denied.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to
dismiss portions of the State Attorneys General complaint. In so doing,
the Court limited certain theories of recovery asserted by the states.
Some States have filed a motion with the Court requesting that it
reconsider certain claims that were dismissed. The Company's motions to
dismiss the federal securities case, along with various private actions,
remain pending.

NTN COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit
NTN Communications Inc. (AMEX:NTN), an Internet games provider and
interactive television network operator, reported November 10, 1999 that
it has settled two outstanding legal claims.

The first settlement was that between NTN and the class of plaintiffs in
Miller v. NTN Communications, et al., filed in June 1997. The parties
have reached a tentative settlement agreement whereby NTN is to pay $
3.25 million, subject to agreement on documentation and preliminary and
final approval by the U.S. District Court. The settlement payment is
fully covered by the company's liability insurance.

In an unrelated development, NTN and the Business Software Alliance
("BSA") have reached a settlement agreement in connection with NTN's use
of certain software products in the course of its business with
insufficient licenses for such use prior to 1998. BSA is a trade
association representing software publishers in the business of
developing and marketing a variety of computer software products.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, NTN will pay to BSA a total of $
339,864 in ten equal monthly installments. The company had previously
reserved an amount sufficient to cover the expense of the settlement.
The payments will therefore have no adverse impact on the company's
future operating results.

"NTN's new management team is very pleased to have these issues from
past years resolved," said Stanley B. Kinsey, chairman and chief
executive officer of NTN Communications Inc.

NYC CABBIES: May Face Suit Over Discrimination Against Black Passengers
The city is planning to have undercover police officers target taxi cab
drivers who purposely pass up black passengers. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
also announced that the city may file misdemeanor charges against the
drivers and is studying whether it can legally seize the cabs. ''Look,
there's a good way to avoid all of this, and that is for the owners of
the cabs and the cab drivers just to come to the reality that life is
going to be different now,'' he said. ''I think everybody who lives in
this city knows that this has been going on for a very, very long time
and maybe this is an opportunity to change it.''

The crackdown begins last Friday morning, about a week after actor Danny
Glover filed a complaint with the city's Taxi & Limousine Commission
because five cabs failed to stop for him. The Rev. Al Sharpton has said
he plans to file a class action lawsuit this month on behalf of blacks
who have been ignored.

Groups representing taxi drivers most of whom are South Asian immigrants
immediately denounced the Giuliani plan. ''It's just an attempt by a
racist mayor to pit black people against brown and black workers of
color,'' said Bhairavi Desai, a staff worker for the Taxi Workers
Alliance. ''It's pure scapegoating. Typical Giuliani trying to avoid the
real racism by blaming taxi drivers.''

Glover's attorney, Randolph Scott-McLaughlin, agreed that targeting
cabbies sends the wrong message and is an attempt to divide the city's
minority community. ''I think it's the wrong application to a chronic
problem, a Band-Aid on a cancer,'' he said. ''It's a waste of resources
to have black officers on corners hailing cabs.'' The city has tried to
weed out discriminatory cabbies for years with little success. (AP
Online 11-11-1999)

PATAKI: Ct Enjoins NY Div. Of Human Rights From Violation Of Statute
New York State National Organization For Women V. Pataki QDS:02761761

Plaintiffs-Intervenors ("plaintiffs") seek a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief based on alleged constitutional violations by
defendants in the processing of discrimination complaints at the New
York State Division of Human Rights (the "Division").

                          The Statute Involved

New York's Human Rights Law, promulgated in 1945, makes the right to
obtain housing and employment free of discrimination a civil right. N.Y.
Exec. Law @ 126 (the "HRL"). The statute, pursuant to @ 296, proscribes
discrimination based on, inter race, color, creed, national origin,
gender, age, disability, pregnancy, in employment, housing, licensing,
labor organization and apprentice training program membership,
employment agency referrals, public accommodations, educational
institutions, public services, and credit transactions. 18 N.Y. Exec. L.
@ 296.

The Division was established and empowered to hear, investigate,
prosecute and adjudicate claims of discrimination outlawed by the
statute. Where such claims had been validated through the agency
process, the Division was empowered, through its Commissioner, to
provide vindicating remediation sufficient to make the claimant whole.
18 N.Y. Exec. L. @ 297.

Manifesting concern that the Division establish a process that moved
matters from initiation to conclusion with reasonable timeliness,
specific time constraints were set forth in the statute, as follows:
Once a claim of discrimination has been filed, the Division is required
to promptly serve a copy on the respondent and to undertake a prompt
investigation of the claim. 18 N.Y. Exec. L. @ 297.2.a. The Division
must decide within 180 days after the claim is filed whether there is
probable cause to believe that the claim of discrimination is valid.
(Id.) If the Division makes a probable cause determination, it must,
within 270 days after the filing of the complaint, issue a notice
requiring the respondent to answer and to appear at a public hearing. 18
N.Y. Exec. L. @ 297.4.a. Within 180 days after commencement of a hearing
a decision and an order must be issued. 18 N.Y. Exec. L. @ 297.4.c.

A Division attorney will prosecute all claims resulting in probable
cause determinations. 18 N.Y. Exec. L. @ 297.4.a.(i). The Division must
ensure compliance with its remedial orders, and when compliance is not
effectuated, it must seek to enforce the order within one year of its
issuance. 18 N.Y. Exec. L. @ 297.7. In evident recognition of the
uniqueness of housing, the timetable for probable cause determinations
with respect to housing discrimination was shortened from 180 to 100
days from the filing of the claim. 18 N.Y. Exec. L. @ 297.2.b. The
statute also explicitly declares that its provisions are to be construed
liberally in order to accomplish the purposes of the HRL. 18 N.Y. Exec.
L. @ 300.

                     The Parties and Relief Sought

Plaintiffs, consisting of various individuals and organizations, have
instituted and intervened in this 42 U.S.C. @ 1983 proceeding, which was
brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23, F.R. Civ. P., in order to
challenge the administrative practices and procedures of the Division in
its handling and processing of claims of discrimination. Plaintiffs
allege that their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal
protection have been infringed by the protracted administrative delays
to which their claims have been subjected, and that the institution of
certain intake rules (the "1995 Intake Rules"), pursuant to which the
Division refused to accept complaints alleging illegal and
unconstitutional discrimination, violates the Supremacy Clause.

Enforcement of the new intake rules was preliminarily enjoined by the
court. Plaintiffs have moved for an order rendering the preliminary
injunction permanent, which motion will be disposed of as part of the
instant determination.

Plaintiff National Organization for Women, New York State, Inc.,
("NOW"), is a membership organization incorporated in the State of New
York, consisting of 24 chapters, with a total membership of 18,000 to
20,000. Plaintiff New York City Chapter of NOW, one of the 24 chapters,
is located in New York City. Plaintiff West chester County Chapter NOW
is a chapter in the indicated county, with offices in White Plains, New

Plaintiff Clarice Seegers filed a complaint of race, gender and
disability-based discrimination against her employer with the Division
on April 13, 1990. Her complaint did not get a public hearing until
roughly seven years after it was filed, and the complaint is still
pending at trial.

Plaintiff Jane Doe is the administratrix of the estate of John Doe, who
filed a disability discrimination complaint with the Division on August
29, 1990. John Doe, the main witness in the case, died in September,
1991, before any meaningful investigation had been commenced and before
a probable cause determination had been made.

Plaintiff Bernadette Thomas initiated a charge of race discrimination
against her employer with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC"). The matter was referred to the Division on March 2,
1987. In January, 1996, Thomas requested and received an administrative
convenience dismissal ("ACD") of her complaint in order to prosecute her
claim in this court. At the time she requested and received the ACD, no
probable cause determination had been made and no public hearing had
been held or scheduled, despite the fact that her complaint had been
pending before the Division for over eight years.

Plaintiff Dellie Britt filed hi's complaint of race discrimination
against his employer with the Division on October 1, 1985. The
complaint, as of the commencement of this litigation, was still pending
in the Division without a final administrative determination.

Michael Campbell filed a complaint of housing discrimination in
September, As of July, 1997, no hearing had been held and no
determination had been made. In the interim, he had been diagnosed with
an inoperable brain illness making death imminent, and, fearful that
death would come before his complaint was heard, he settled his case in
July, 1997.

The defendants include Margarita Rosa, Commissioner of the Division from
1990, to January, 1995. Rosa, prior to being named Commissioner, had
served as Executive Deputy Commissioner and as General Counsel of the
Division. As the chief executive officer of the Division from 1990 to
1995, Rosa had primary responsibility for administering the HRL.

Defendant Edward Mercado was Rosa's immediate successor. He took office
as Commissioner in October, 1995, and, as such, had primary
responsibility for administering the HRL from 1995 to the present.

Defendant Mario Cuomo was Governor of the State of New York from January
1, 1983, to Decembef 31, 1994. As the state's chief executive, Governor
Cuomo was responsible for management of all departments and agencies
statutorily authorized and funded by the state during his twelve years
in office.

Defendant George Pataki succeeded Governor Cuomo as Governor of the
State of New York on January 1, 1995, and continues in that position at
present. As such he has been responsible, since January 1, 1995, for
management of all departments and agencies funded by the State

                    History of the Litigation

This litigation was instituted as a class action on October 15, 1993, by
Robert Louis Sanstrom. On July 24, 1995, Jane Doe, Bernadette Thomas,
Dellie Britt and Clarice Seegers were allowed to intervene as individual
plaintiffs-intervenors and NOW (New York State, New York City and
Westchester County Chapters) were allowed to intervene in a
representational capacity.

                        The Class Defined

The class action was provisionally defined as consisting of all persons
who, since October 15, 1990, had filed or will file complaints of
discrimination with the Division and whose complaints have not been, or
will not be, finally administratively adjudicated or otherwise
substantively resolved within three years of the date of the filing of
the complaint. The provisional class was subsequently further defined to
include three subclasses:

* All persons who have been, are, or will be subject to dismissal of
  their complaints because defendants Rosa and Mercado have taken
  longer than three years from the date the complaint was filed to
  render a final determination (hereinafter "subclass A"); and

* All persons who have been, are, or may be subject to a reduction in
  the monetary relief awarded, either by order of Rosa, Mercado or by a
  court because defendants Rosa and Mercado have taken longer than
  three years from the date the complaint was filed to render a final
  administrative determination (hereinafter "subclass B"); and

* on April 3, 1998, a third subclass was added comprising all persons
  who have been, are, or may be subject to ACD dismissals because the
  Division was either unable to locate complainants or had determined
  that the complainants had failed to cooperate and that their
  complaints had been pending for more than one year (hereinafter
  "subclass C").

On April 3, 1998, the class was allowed to amend the complaint to add
claims against Governor Pataki and Commissioner Mercado in their
personal capacities for permitting the delays in processing complaints
before the Division. In addition, the class was also allowed to sue
Mercado in his personal capacity for the institution and implementation
of revised rules of practice relative to the Division's intake

NOW's application for preliminary injunctive relief was heard before
Magistrate Judge James Francis IV on May 15, and May 20, 1997. On June
17, 1997, Judge Francis issued his Report and Recommendation proposing
that the enforcement of the new intake procedures be preliminarily
enjoined. In an opinion filed on April 3, 1998, the court accepted and
adopted the Report and Recommendation as the order of the court. See NOW
v. Cuomo, 182 F.R.D. 30 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Carter, J.) (hereinafter "NOW
I"). The court was thereafter advised that Commissioner Mercado had
immediately directed Division to cease using the new intake procedures
and had begun the process of repealing them. (Tr. at 760.)

On July 16, 1997, plaintiffs moved to consolidate the proceedings on
their motion for preliminary injunctive relief with the trial on the
merits, thereby converting the preliminary injunction into a permanent

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' damages claims based on their
claim of qualified immunity. That motion was granted in part and denied
in part by an opinion and order entered on July 24, 1998. See NOW v.
Cuomo, 14 F. Supp.2d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (hereinafter "NOW II"). Appeal
of the court's NOW II ruling is pending before the Second Circuit.

By order dated August 4, 1998, the court bifurcated the proceedings,
stayed the trial concerning defendants' individual liability for damages
pending appeal of the court's NOW II ruling, and ordered trial to
proceed only on plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief. The trial for declaratory and injunctive relief commenced on
August 11, 1998, consumed seven trial days, and concluded on August 26,
1998. Post-trial briefs and memoranda were duly filed in November, 1998.

                      Preliminary Injunction

In NOW I, the court granted Plaintiff-NOW's request for a preliminary
injunction enjoining Defendant Commissioner Mercado from implementing
the 1995 Intake Rules because NOW established that it was likely to
prevail on its claim that the rules violated NOW's members' due process
rights by randomly barring complainants from filing claims with
Division. See NOW I, 182 F.R.D. at 42. Plaintiff now requests that the
court convert the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction and
bar Defendant Mercado from resuming use of the rules.

When a plaintiff requests an injunction to remedy a constitutional
violation, the court "first consider[s] whether plaintiff has
established the fact of a violation[;]" if so, the next question is
"whether the plaintiff has demonstrated both the presence of a
continuing irreparable injury and the lack of an adequate remedy at
law." Farmland Dairies v. McGuire, 789 F. Supp. 1243, 1249 (S.D.N.Y.
1992) (Patterson, J.).

                 Proof of Constitutional Violation

The evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing established
that the 1995 Intake Rules violated NOW's members due process rights.
This evidence was as follows: (1) statutes which showed that Division is
by law required to accept a complaint from "any person claiming to be
aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice," 18 N.Y. Exec. L. @
297.1 and to investigate the claim to determine "whether there is
probable cause to believe that the person named in the complaint... has
engaged or is engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice." 18 N.Y.
Exec. L. @ 297.2a.; (2) evidence that prior to the 1995 Intake Rules,
Division intake workers would accept any jurisdictionally correct and
timely complaint submitted to Division, regardless of whether they were
skeptical about the basis for the complaint (Prelim. Inj. Tr. at 315,
346); (3) proof that the 1995 Intake Rules, because of their ambiguous
terms invited Division intake workers to speculate about the merits of
potential claims; See NOW I, 182 F.R.D. at 40-41; (4) proof that under
the 1995 Intake Rules workers turned away complaints based on their
idiosyncratic opinions and speculations; id; (5) proof that ambiguities
in the 1995 Intake Rules were never resolved in writing; id.; (6)
evidence that workers received minimal training on how to implement the
rules; id. and (7) evidence that the training began months after
official began using the rules. Id. This evidence established that
Division workers using these rules arbitrarily deprived persons of their
property interest in their claims.

The evidence NOW presented at trial showed that the Intake Rules had
great impact, and potentially deprived large numbers of persons of their
discrimination complaints without cause. NOW presented trial evidence
showing that 2,448 jurisdictionally correct and timely complaints were
rejected under the 1995 Intake Rules, with no attempt being made to
investigate these claims. (Tr. at 423-24). Additionally, NOW showed that
Division turned away a substantial number of additional complaints for
which they have no record. (Tr. at 981). If the court uses a
conservative estimate, that 25 percent of the rejected claims were
valid, it can reasonably be assumed that 625 more discrimination
complaints would have been resolved under Division's original intake
rules than were resolved under the 1995 Intake Rules.

Taken together, the facts presented at the preliminary injunction
hearing and at trial establish that Division's 1995 Intake Rules, 9
N.Y.C.R.R. @@ 465.1(1) and 465.3(c)(6), deprived NOW members of their
federally protected property interest in having their discrimination
complaints resolved through Division procedures because these rules
entirely prevented large numbers of complainants with valid claims from
submitting claims to Division.

                      Proof of Continuing Harm

Defendant Mercado argues that plaintiff's petition for a permanent
injunction is moot; he argues that NOW cannot show that the 1995 Intake
Rules present a threat of "continuing irreparable injury" to its members
because he has begun to repeal the rules. Farmland Dairies v. McGuire,
789 F. Supp. at 1249. The court recognizes that "the Eleventh Amendment
bars a retrospective declaration of a violation of federal law where
there is no continuing violation to enjoin." Marbley v. Bane, 57 F.3d
224, 232 (2d Cir. 1995). However, "mere voluntary cessation of allegedly
illegal conduct does not moot a case... A case might become moot if
subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful
behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." United States v.
Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968) (citations omitted).

Based on these guidelines, the court concludes that plaintiff's request
for an injunction is not moot. No evidence has been submitted to the
court showing that the 1995 Intake Rules have been repealed. At the time
of decision, the only evidence submitted on this issue was Deputy
Commissioner Lind's testimony that Division was in the process of
repealing the 1995 Intake Rules. (Tr. at 760). As of the date of
judgment, it remained unclear whether the rules had been fully repealed.
Therefore, the court cannot assume that plaintiff's claim for injunctive
relief has been mooted.

Furthermore, even if the 1995 Intake Rules have been repealed, Division
officials' behavior during the course of this lawsuit suggests that
there is an impending threat that defendant or his successor might later
reimplement the 1995 Intake Rules. (explaining that a repealed law may
be declared unconstitutional when defendant threatens to resume its
use). Green, 474 U.S. at 73. The court takes note that defendant only
voluntarily ceased using the 1995 Intake Rules after NOW amended its
suit against Division to challenge the offending intake rules. The court
also recognizes that defendant and other Division officials engaged in a
pattern of unconstitutional conduct prior to this case, and therefore it
is likely that, if an injunction is not issued, defendant or his
successor will reimplement the 1995 Intake Rules, or some intake
procedure functionally similar to them. See United States v. Oregon
State Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). For these reasons the
court concludes that there is a continuing need for a permanent

                         Absolute Immunity

In their post-trial memorandum of law, for the first time, defendants
Pataki and Cuomo raise the claim that they are entitled to absolute
immunity from plaintiffs' claims; they argue that plaintiffs have
improperly tried to sue defendants for their participation in protected
legislative activities.

"Absolute immunity, because it detracts from section 1983's broadly
remedial purpose, applies only to a limited class of officials and
functions." Spear v. Town of West Hartford, 954 F.2d 63, 66 (2d Cir.
1992). This kind of immunity fully protects officials from personal
liability for the performance of certain discretionary acts. Id. Because
absolute immunity offers officials such broad protection, courts
typically limit its protections to legislators and prosecutors for the
duties associated with their offices. Id. However, executive officials
may qualify for its protections when they engage in prosecutorial and
legislative kinds of duties. Id.

Defendants, however, have the burden of raising the absolute immunity
defense in their initial and responsive pleadings, cf. San Filippo v.
United States Trust Co., 737 F.2d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 1984), as it is an
affirmative defense. When they fail to do so, defendants waive their
right to the defense. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(c) (discussing affirmative

Court records show that the first time defendants raised the absolute
immunity defense was in their Defendants' Post Trial Memorandum of Law.
Defendants have failed to show that they raised the defense in their
initial responses to plaintiff's various claims. Because the record does
not support defendants' claim that they timely raised their absolute
immunity defense, the court concludes that the defense is waived.

              Appropriate Relief and Further Proceedings

The district court has broad discretion to fashion equitable remedies
for constitutional violations. See Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of
Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971). However, courts should refrain from
fashioning relief that "intrude[s] unnecessarily on a state's governance
of its own affairs," as the state has strong need to maintain control
over its fiscal operations. Ass'n of Surrogates & Supreme Court
Reporters Within New York v. New York, 966 F.2d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1992).
The court may impose a remedial order on the state that has financial
costs so long as compliance with the order is not unduly burdensome or
costly; see Dean v. A. Coughlin, 804 F.2d 207, 214-15 (2d Cir. 1986)
however, the prudent course is to allow a state to offer a remedial plan
and improve upon it as necessary. Id.

Defendants are hereby enjoined from taking or continuing to take any
action in violation of plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights. By way of remedy for the constitutional violations identified in
this opinion, the court orders defendants to meet with plaintiffs and to
forthwith commence formulation of a Joint Remedial Plan. Without
intending to impinge upon the initial responsibility to formulate the
plan, which predominately lies with Division officials, the court notes
that the remedial plan, in order to address the constitutional
violations identified in this opinion, must cover the areas proposed in
this section, and include appropriate financial data as specified. The
Remedial Plan must include:

* the projected staff and funding necessary for Division to process
  claims within 24 to 36 months, assuming Division receives a new case
  load of 5,474 complaints each year, the projected staff and funding
  necessary for Division to permanently finance a special Backlog Case
  Unit that would automatically perform expedited case processing for
  all claims pending at Division for more than three years;

* proposed Division policies and programs that will ensure the
  integrity of plaintiffs' claims while they are pending at the
  Division. These policies may include programs designed to: timely
  depose complainants' witnesses and preserve their statements for the
  record; [including microfilming, recording, or warehousing
  complainants' documentary and testimonial evidence]; and more
  aggressively locate complainants' and witnesses' forwarding address
  information [including the use of a people locator service];

* proposed procedures that permit persons whose claims have been
  erroneously subject to ACD to appeal the ACD;

* anticipated funding sources that can be tapped to cover the costs of
  the aforementioned policy and staff changes.

The court recognizes that plaintiffs and defendants may fail to agree on
certain aspects of the Joint Remedial Plan. Should this contingency
occur, each side may submit individually proposed portions of the plan
to the court.

In addition to their duty to participate in the formulation of the
remedial plan, Division officials are enjoined from engaging in the
following actions:

* implementing, 9 N.Y.C.R.R. @@ 465.1(1) and 9 N.Y.C.R.R. @
  465.3(c)(6), because these rules violate complainants' due process
  rights by barring them from submitting claims to Division;

* from singularly relying on United Postal Service mail forwarding
  procedures to locate complainants who face ACD determinations;
  defendants are required to use the Internal Revenue Service Mail
  Forwarding Service to locate persons whose claims are at risk for
  ACD, or an equivalent substitute;

* from using the Division ACD notification letter in circulation after
  April 11, 1991, because the letter provides insufficient notice to
  complainants that they are risk for ACD; Defendants must submit a new
  ACD notification letter for court review which unambiguously informs
  parties that their claims will be subject to ACD if they fail to
  respond to the letter, and that they have a right to appeal an ACD.
  Defendant must also create a post-ACD determination letter informing
  complainants that their claims have NOW BEEN DISMISSED and notifying
  complainants of their right to appeal the ACD. The ACD notification
  letters should be mailed to an address for the complainant identified
  by the Internal Revenue Service Mail Forwarding Service;

* defendant Commissioner Mercado must vacate all cases dismissed under
  the "failure to locate," and "failure to cooperate," ACD
  designations, and restore these complainants to the position they
  previously had in Division's adjudicatory process;

* Division must submit to the court the letter it will use to inform
  persons whose claims were dismissed under the ACD policy that they
  have the right to resubmit their claims.

Plaintiffs in subclass A with pending claims are entitled to the
injunctive and declaratory relief provided above; Subclass A members
with finally dismissed complaints may bring money damage claims against
defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel must submit a methodology for
identifying these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in subclass C, because they are
represented by NOW in this action, are entitled to declaratory and
injunctive relief for the injuries caused by Division's ACD process.

The court retains jurisdiction to enforce, modify, or rescind the
provisions of the aforementioned injunctions. It Is So Ordered.
(New York Law Journal 10-29-1999)

RADISSON HOTEL: Alabama Suit Says Unpaid Bills Charged To Employees
Restaurant workers at the Radisson Hotel Berkeley Marina filed a lawsuit
against hotel management November 11, 1999, saying employees have been
forced to pick up the tab when diners walk out without paying. The
class-action suit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, seeks an end
to the hotel's policy and demands that servers be reimbursed for the
wages and tips they used to recoup the costs of unpaid meals, including
the sales tax.

Employees said they are told to pay up, in violation of state law, even
when the customers "dine and dash," which can be a misdemeanor -- or a
felony, if the bill exceeds $400. "We don't want to pay for things that
are obviously not our fault," said plaintiff Teresa Sharpe, 27, of
Oakland, who was told on her first night on the job that she had to pay
the meals for three groups of customers who left without paying.

Brij Misra, the hotel's general manager, called the accusations
"absolutely false" and said no employees are forced to pay for walkouts.
"We follow the law to the T," he said. Misra said, however, that
employees face disciplinary action, ranging from written warnings to
termination, if they do not follow hotel procedures, such as ensuring
that meals for hotel guests are properly charged to rooms or collecting
cash each time food is brought to the table.
He called the lawsuit a form of extortion, noting that hotel employees
have been organizing to form a union.

The plaintiff's attorney, Elizabeth Lawrence of San Francisco, said the
hotel practice is illegal regardless of whether the servers unionize.
Asked why the hotel would allegedly charge its servers, Lawrence said,
"Because people don't complain; it's a very small amount of money, and
they think they can get away with it."

According to a state Industrial Welfare Commission code, employees
cannot have their pay deducted or be required to reimburse their
employer for a cash shortage unless it was caused by "a dishonest or
willful act or by the gross negligence of the employee."

Jim Abrams, an executive vice president of the California Hotel and
Motel Association, said each case has to be evaluated individually as to
the quality of service and employee training and whether there was
"gross negligence" on the server's part.

Kristin Olsen, spokeswoman for the California Restaurant Association,
said the hospitality industry, faced with such losses, generally
"absorbs costs into their overhead." An informal survey of Bay Area bars
and restaurants appeared to confirm that practice.

Restaurateurs said they do not collect from servers, even if they were
not paying attention to their tables -- such as taking a break without
telling other servers -- thereby allowing frustrated or delinquent
customers to leave. But some restaurants have charged servers deemed to
be at fault, said P.J. Moore, a bartender at Henry's Publick House and
Grille in Berkeley, which does not follow the practice.

The Radisson lawsuit names the hotel and its Cleveland-based operator,
Boykin Management Company, as defendants. Members of Local 2850 of the
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union tried to drop off a copy
of the lawsuit to Misra, but he could not be found. His assistant, Holly
Sills, declined to accept it outside the hotel, and union organizers
dropped it on the ground. (The San Francisco Chronicle 11-11-1999)

RITE AID: Discloses Florida AG's Lawsuit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
Report of Rite Aid Corp. for the quarterly period ended August 28, 1999
filed with the SEC as of November 2, 1999:

In September 1999, the Florida Attorney General filed a lawsuit charging
the company with deceptive trade practices, civil theft and
racketeering. The complaint alleges the company's practice of varying
the price it charged customers who paid cash for prescription medication
constituted a deceptive trade practice. Subsequently, a number of
purported class action lawsuits were filed in various states and federal
courts alleging the practice violated applicable consumer protection
laws in the jurisdictions in which the lawsuits were filed. The company
has denied that it engaged in any improper practices and intends to
defend these actions vigorously. The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be
predicted. The company is defending various lawsuits alleging among
other things, breach of contract and breach of lease obligations and
failure to comply with applicable wage and hours laws. The company
believes it has made adequate provision for any resulting liabilities.

SFSU: SF State University Settles Suit Over Access By Disabled
San Francisco State University settled a court challenge with a class of
disabled students and faculty members who claimed the school failed to
provide reasonable access to campus programs, services and activities.
Under the terms of the settlement, SFSU has agreed to set aside $9.5
million over a 12-year period to remove access barriers on campus. The
university has also agreed to hire a full-time Americans With
Disabilities Act coordinator with expertise in disability access.

But how much of that money will be spent is not yet known. Neither side
is clear about exactly how much work will be required to bring the
campus into compliance with the ADA. Plaintiffs attorney Laurence
Paradis, of Oakland's Disability Rights Advocates, said the school has
already committed $3 million to improving access. Any additional funds
will be based on the recommendations of the ADA coordinator.

At the end of the 12-year period, Paradis said an arbitrator can award
an additional $1.5 million for any improvements that need to be made.
Those improvements may include ensuring at least one accessible entrance
to every building, providing more than 25 sets of accessible restrooms
and improving signage, a plaintiffs' press release stated.

But SFSU attorney Jack "Skip" McCowan Jr., a partner at Gordon & Rees,
said that before any money is paid out for improvements, the ADA
coordinator has to determine that something needs to be fixed. He said
that could take as long as a year. "It may be a substantial amount; it
may not," he said.

The two sides reached the agreement after two years of litigation and
three months of serious negotiations. The settlement will be presented
to U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney for her approval.

"Our goal in bringing this lawsuit was to make San Francisco State
University truly accessible to persons with disabilities," said lead
plaintiff Elizabeth Campos, who uses a wheelchair and is known on campus
as an outspoken critic of SFSU's disability policies. "We are glad that
this settlement will give students with disabilities the access they

Campos and the other plaintiffs were represented by Disability Rights
Advocates, a non-profit public interest law firm based in Oakland; The
Legal Aid Society of San Francisco; and San Francisco's Leonard, Carder,
Nathan, Zuckerman, Ross, Chin & Remar.

SFSU was represented by Gordon & Rees partners McCowan and Michael

The plaintiffs say the settlement could make SFSU the most accessible
campus in the country. "We are very pleased that SFSU has committed to a
comprehensive, long-term program to improve access throughout the
university for students and faculty with mobility and vision
disabilities," Paradis said in a prepared statement.

The university stated it hopes to achieve greater success supporting
students and faculty with disabilities. "I am pleased that the
university and the plaintiffs were able to resolve this case amicably,"
said SFSU President Robert Corrigan. "This settlement reflects our
dedication to continually addressing the needs of persons with
disabilities on our campus." (The Recorder 11-5-1999)

SUBWAY FRANCHISE: Sandwich Shops Face Claims From Hepatitis A Victims
A Class Action Lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court against
the two Subway sandwich shops implicated in the recent Hepatitis A
outbreak. The named plaintiff is Anita Schuerhoff. Ms. Schuerhoff ate a
sandwich purchased at the Subway located at 18002 15th NE in Shoreline
on September 19, 1999. On October 15, she began to feel weak and dizzy.
She also suffered severe nausea. She had had numerous visits to the
doctors and repeated lab tests. She had been unable to work for several
weeks. Because she has been exposed to this virus, she is no longer able
to give blood or donate an organ.

According to the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
thirty-one Washington residents have reported contracting the Hepatitis
A virus since October 15, 1999. The majority of the individuals who have
contracted the virus live or work in Northeast Seattle or East
Shoreline. An investigation by the Health Department has determined the
likely sources of the outbreak to be two North Seattle Subway sandwich
shops. (See release from the Seattle-King Co. Department of Public

"Unfortunately, the number of victims is likely to rise because the
incubation period can be several weeks and there is a substantial risk
of person-to-person exposure," said William Marler, a partner at the
Seattle law firm of Marler Clark.

Hepatitis A is a viral infection of the liver that is caused by the
Hepatitis A virus. The virus is most commonly spread through contact
with human stool. Symptoms include nausea, cramping, fatigue and fever.
In young children these symptoms can appear flu-like, but in some cases
do not appear at all. Symptoms most often begin two to six weeks after
exposure and can last up to two weeks. Preventative treatment is only
effective when administered within 14 days of exposure to the virus.
After 14 days there is no treatment.

However, Hepatitis A can be prevented by vaccination prior to exposure.
The CDC reports that about 22,700 cases of Hepatitis A occur in the
United States annually. Contamination of foods by infected workers in
food processing and restaurants is a common source of outbreaks.
Prevention is best done through washing hands with soap and warm running
water after using the toilet, changing diapers, and before preparing or
eating food. Contact: Marler Clark Julie Stormes, 206/346-1888

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Doctor Recalls Ordeal Of Florida Smoker In Lawsuit
One of the two patients in the class action had a large tumor in his
throat and received radiation. A radiation oncologist who treated a man
representing sick Florida smokers in a class-action lawsuit testified
Wednesday he initially didn't expect the throat cancer patient to live
very long.

Dr. Alan Forbes of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Orlando began
treating Frank Amodeo in June 1987 soon after he went to an emergency
room with a bleeding throat. He had a golf ball-sized bulge on his neck,
and an extensive tumor was visible in his throat.

Smokers' attorney Stanley Rosenblatt asked whether he thought Amodeo,
who had been a two-pack-a-day smoker, would survive. "No," Forbes said.
"This was a very bulky, problematic tumor with a lot of damage." He drew
charts showing how the 2-inch tumor, which was too large for surgery,
had spread from below Amodeo's tongue throughout his throat.

Twice-daily radiation treatments required Amodeo to lie on his side with
what Forbes described as a "wax lollipop" in his mouth to press his
tongue into position to allow effective treatment. "It's fairly
uncomfortable," he said.
The tumor shrank quickly, and Amodeo now has a normal life expectancy,
Forbes said. But the 60-year-old can no longer eat or drink because of
the cancer's destruction. "When he swallows, no matter what he swallows
goes down into the trachea, into the lung," Forbes said. Amodeo is fed
through a stomach tube.

Also Wednesday, Circuit Judge Robert Kaye denied "on a day-by-day basis"
Rosenblatt's motion to have Brown & Williamson Tobacco stop surveying
South Floridians about the movie The Insider, which is based on the
story of a company whistle-blower. Kaye has told jurors not to see the
movie or visit the Web site on which Brown & Williamson rebuts the
movie, but he said he would watch closely for indications the jury had
been influenced.

Amodeo and Mary Farnan, who has lung cancer, represent as many as
500,000 Floridians who blame cigarette smoking for their illnesses and
are seeking damages from the nation's five biggest tobacco companies.

In July, the jury found the tobacco companies engaged in "extreme and
outrageous conduct" making a product that sickens its consumers. (The
Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News (Stuart,FL) 11-11-1999)

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Industry Tries To Reinvent Itself, Critics Balk
The tobacco industry is trying to recast itself as a responsible civic
presence, not the Darth Vader of nicotine. Unconvinced, anti-smoking
groups are trying to mobilize a backlash against the industry effort.
The tussling represents a new chapter in the nation's tobacco wars, one
directed at public sentiment as the industry attempts to cast aside its
old bunker mentality in favor of a warmer and fuzzier image.

"For many years, we've let our critics define us," says Mike Pfeil,
spokesman for Philip Morris, about the reason for the company's
makeover. He concedes it could affect pending lawsuits but insists:
"This is not a litigation strategy. This is a communications strategy."

Philip Morris, the nation's largest cigarette maker, acknowledged for
the first time last month, on its Internet site, "There is overwhelming
medical and scientific consensus" that smoking causes cancer and other
diseases. The company is spending $ 100 million a year on TV ads to tout
its charitable activities and its non-tobacco products. That's on top of
a separate $ 100 million annual ad campaign urging kids to "Think, Don't
Smoke." Other tobacco companies are mounting similar efforts.

Critics say the industry is not experiencing a change of heart but
rather is trying to buy respectability that could sway courtroom juries,
now and in the future.

The industry faces serious legal challenges. The U.S. government
recently filed a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against it, and a Florida
court is considering a potentially huge class-action case. Last year,
the industry agreed to pay states more than $ 200 billion over 25 years
to settle claims. The agreement requires the industry to identify
methods to reduce underage smoking and forbids "any material
misrepresentation of fact regarding the health consequences of using
tobacco." Anti-smoking groups are mobilizing attacks on the industry's
campaign to resell itself.

Thousands of Florida teens are participating in a series of "Big Tobacco
on the Run" events. They'll be tearing smoking ads from magazines,
stamping them with orange neon "Rejected-Rebuffed-Returned" stickers and
sending them to tobacco executives. "The idea is to provide a fun,
entertaining way to tell the tobacco companies, 'We are on to you, and
we know what you are up to,' " said Frank Penela, spokesman for the
Florida Tobacco Pilot Program, which is organizing the events.

Bill Novelli, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, predicts
"quite a backlash." He said the industry ads "outrage a lot of people."
Novelli calls Philip Morris' youth anti-smoking ads an "ineffectual"
charade and "a substitute for real change."

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids began placing ads in national
newspapers that feature a letter, signed by leading health-care groups,
calling on Philip Morris to take action. The letter, noting that Philip
Morris' product Marlboro is the leading brand chosen by kids, says the
company should agree to federal regulation of its products, advertising
restrictions and elimination of its sales via vending machines or the

Industry officials say they're sincere, but they know changing their
image won't be easy. The industry's image could take another hit with
the release of The Insider, a film starring Al Pacino as an
investigative reporter and Russell Crowe as the whistleblower based on
the true story of a tobacco company research scientist who later was
fired. "We hope we'll be judged by our actions long-term," Pfeil said.
He said Philip Morris is committed to tryingto curb teen smoking.
(The Detroit News 11-10-1999)

WARNER-LAMBERT: Pension Funds Sue In Dela Over Proposed Merger With AHP
following is an announcement by the law firm of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP:

Two Louisiana public pension funds -- the Louisiana School Employees'
Retirement System and the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System -- have filed a class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery seeking to prevent the Board of Directors of
Warner-Lambert Company from breaching fiduciary duties owed to the
public shareholders of Warner-Lambert by consummating the current
proposed merger with American Home Products Corporation, according to
the funds' counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The Funds allege that the Board of Directors of Warner-Lambert has
breached its fiduciary duty to the public shareholders of the Company by
agreeing to a merger with American Home without giving due consideration
to a competing, substantially higher offer for the Company by Pfizer,
Inc. On November 4, 1999, Warner-Lambert announced that its board had
approved a merger with American Home in a $ 72 billion transaction.
Several hours later, Pfizer announced a competing bid for Warner-Lambert
which valued the Company at $ 82.4 billion. Warner-Lambert's Board
summarily rejected this higher offer the same day that it was made.
Pfizer also announced that it had attempted to enter into merger
negotiations with Warner-Lambert in the weeks prior to the Company's
announcement of its proposed merger with American Home, but that these
overtures were rebuffed, even though Pfizer repeatedly indicated that it
would be willing to pay a substantial premium for the Company and that a
merger with Pfizer would be in the long term interests of Warner-Lambert

The Funds' complaint challenges the refusal to consider adequately the
Pfizer proposal, and also challenges various anti-takeover provisions
adopted by the Warner-Lambert Board to prevent any competing offer,
including Pfizer's higher offer, from succeeding. For example,
Warner-Lambert has agreed to pay a $ 2 billion termination fee to
American Home in the event that the merger is not consummated, possibly
the largest termination fee ever agreed to in connection with a business

In addition, Warner-Lambert has awarded American Home a "lock-up" option
to purchase 14.9% of the outstanding common stock of Warner-Lambert at a
reduced price. The "lock-up" appears to have been instituted to disable
any other suitor from utilizing favorable accounting treatment for the
transaction other than American Home. The complaint alleges that these
measures are improper and were instituted in the face of Pfizer's
overtures and undermine the ability of Warner-Lambert shareholders to
receive the best merger proposal that could be made.

The Funds, which collectively hold more than $ 10 million in
Warner-Lambert common stock, have instituted this action to ensure that
the Warner-Lambert Board exercises its fiduciary duties and acts in the
best interests of the shareholders of the Company. "We believe that it
is critically important that shareholders with substantial holdings be
involved in the litigation; these shareholders, unlike those with
nominal interests, have the knowledge and expertise to ensure that the
Board exercises its duties in the best interests of all shareholders,"
commented Randy Roche, General Counsel of both Louisiana public funds.
"We believe that these goals will best be achieved through significant
institutional involvement in this litigation."

The Louisiana Funds are public pension funds and institutional investors
with assets in excess of $ 2.4 billion that exist for the benefit of the
employees of the State of Louisiana public schools and municipal police
personnel. The Funds invite institutional shareholders interested in
learning more about this important litigation to contact the Funds'
attorneys, Daniel L. Berger or Douglas M. McKeige, of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP at (800) 380-8496 or (212) 554-1400 or by E-mail:
doug@blbglaw.com or visit their website at http://www.blbglaw.com

WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL: Alabama Ct Reduces Verdict For Bilking Consumers
After a jury decided that Whirlpool Financial National Bank, now known
as Transamerica Bank, bilked Alabama consumers through a satellite dish
financing scheme and awarded the plaintiffs 581 million, the Circuit
Court of Hale County, Ala., entered an order late last month reducing
the verdict to 300 million. Carlisle v. Whirlpool Financial National
Bank, et al., No. CV-97-068 (Cir. Ct. Hale Co. 8/25/99).

Whirlpool and Gulf Coast Electronics Inc. entered into a merchant
agreement whereby Gulf Coast would sell home satellite dish systems
financed by Whirlpool. Under the agreement, Whirlpool had the right to
approve Gulf Coast's promotional materials and marketing tactics,
approve or deny consumer credit applications, set the terms of financing
and decide whether or not to extend credit cards to applicants.
Whirlpool also maintained each credit card account and accepted all
payments while Gulf Coast explained the financing documents and
delivered the equipment.

The plaintiffs' complaints against Whirlpool alleged that the satellite
dish retailer, Gulf Coast, misrepresented the financing terms of the
credit card loans used to purchase the dishes. The plaintiffs testified
that they agreed to pay 34 per month at an annual interest rate of 21.9
percent. They also understood that if they paid 34 for 36 months, the
satellite dish system would be paid in full. However, the consumers were
charged interest rates in excess of 300 percent on contracts that ran
for four years.

A jury agreed with the plaintiffs that Whirlpool engaged in systematic
fraud to gouge them with high interest rates. It awarded the plaintiffs
975,000 in compensatory damages and 580 million in punitive damages.
Believing it did nothing wrong to warrant the finding of liability,
Whirlpool appealed.


After reviewing the record, the court found there was substantial
evidence to support the jury's finding that an apparent agency
relationship existed between Whirlpool and Gulf Coast. The court held
that Whirlpool was "holding the dealers out to customers as having the
authority to represent Whirlpool." Therefore, the court found no basis
to refute the jury's assignment of liability.

                           Verdict amount

The court did, however, review the size of the Alabama jury's verdict.
It considered the reprehensibility of the defendants' conduct in its
review of whether the amount of the punitive damage award was
reasonable. Judge Marvin W. Wiggins first asked whether the fraudulent
actions constituted a "malicious predatory sales practice."

The plaintiffs offered evidence that Whirlpool engaged in predatory
sales practices aimed at individuals because of their race, age, lack of
education and financial status. The consumers also introduced evidence
that the defendants received over 1,000 complaints a week regarding the
alleged scheme, and 59 consumers filed suit against them. Taken as a
whole, this evidence persuaded the court that the "maliciousness" factor
of its reprehensibility test was satisfied.

Next, the court asked whether the defendants' activities were carried on
with such reckless disregard for the rights or safety of others as to
make the damage to the consumers foreseeable. It answered the question
in the affirmative after finding that Whirlpool was aware of the
problems prior to the fraud practiced on the plaintiffs.

The third "reprehensibility" factor applied was whether the defendants
took any remedial steps to prevent future occurrences of fraud. The
court held that Whirlpool was aware of its customers' complaints
surrounding Gulf Coast's telemarketing and door-to-door sales practices
and misleading statements yet did nothing about them. Thus, it held this
particular factor of reprehensibility was evident and the jury's verdict
was consistent.

The court ruled the defendants also disregarded their own policies in
furtherance of the fraud. The evidence showed that even though Whirlpool
placed Gulf Coast on a "high risk watch list" after learning of the
customers' complaints, it continued to do business with Gulf Coast. The
plaintiffs also offered evidence that Whirlpool used a dealer that
employed a convicted felon. Finally, the record indicated Whirlpool
offered Gulf Coast customers an "open-ended" credit plan instead of a
standard loan form, which would have required more specific disclosures.

Lastly, the court addressed the question of whether the defendants
continued their course of conduct after the plaintiffs were damaged.
Finding that 23 similar cases were filed after the plaintiffs' cases
were instituted and that Whirlpool continued to bill customers who
lodged complaints, the court located no evidence to indicate that
Whirlpool discontinued its fraudulent conduct.

After applying these several factors, the Circuit Court held that
Whirlpool's conduct against the financially vulnerable plaintiffs "was
to a degree extremely reprehensible." It denied the defendants' motion
for a new trial and motions for judgment as a matter of law but granted
their motions for remitter. In summary, the court said, "The Court
applauds the jury for its courage and vision with this verdict. They
spoke their minds regardless of how acceptable, popular, politically
correct or justifiable the consequences."

                        Plaintiffs' Reactions

In response to the court's decision, plaintiffs' attorney, Thomas J.
Methvin of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles P.C. stated,
"The court allowed a significant punitive damage award to stand in this
case because the conduct of Whirlpool, in targeting the elderly and
illiterate in a sales finance scam, is the worst conduct by corporate
America ever to be exposed in the Alabama judicial system. Eight other
major out-of-state banks were engaged in similar conduct in Alabama. As
a result of our lawsuits against them, those banks stopped doing this in
Alabama. In spite of the lawsuits, Whirlpool refused to quit their
activities. The jury's verdict and the trial judge's very strong ruling
should make Whirlpool put a stop to this type of conduct." (Consumer
Financial Services Law Report 9-20-1999)

YIELD-BURNING: Deal Delayed Until 2000; Time Needed To Verify Mark-ups
Federal agencies and municipal securities firms are not likely to reach
a long-awaited massive "global" yield-burning settlement until next
year, partly because of the enormous effort required to calculate and
verify the markups on government securities escrowed for hundreds of
advance refunding transactions, knowledgeable sources said.

In addition, regional firms are balking at signing onto a tentative
outline of an agreement that has been reached between the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Internal Revenue Service, Justice Department, and
major Wall Street firms, the sources said. The regional firms are trying
to make the case that they should be treated more leniently and accorded
higher markup levels than the major firms because they were involved in
fewer, smaller transactions with similar costs.

And there are still some issues that need be resolved by the Internal
Revenue Service, the sources said. They refused, however, to identify
those issues.

Meanwhile, Merrill Lynch & Co. and 15 other firms asked a federal judge
to dismiss the revised yield-burning complaint that was filed in
September by Dwight Brock, the clerk of Collier County, Fla., in a case
seeking class action status that has been pending for more than a year.

The delays in reaching a multi-firm settlement comes as federal
regulators and securities firm officials, weary from years of
controversy, probes, and litigation, had hoped to negotiate a
yield-burning settlement this year so that they could put the matter
behind them.

But sources said that no one fully appreciated the massive amount of
time and resources it would take for the firms to document and calculate
their markups on government securities for hundreds of negotiated
advance refunding transactions. Some firms have had to pull staff from
their public finance, governmental securities, legal, and accounting
areas and assign them to do this work on a full-time basis for many
weeks, the sources said. In addition, the agencies -- primarily the SEC
for major firms and the National Association of Securities Dealers for
regional firms -- have had to verify the markup calculations.

There appears to be a split between the major and regional firms on what
markup levels and resulting penalties would be most appropriate for
them. The larger firms have worked out a matrix of markup levels that
would apply to their deals, sources said. But many of the regional firms
are still holding out for more lenient treatment. Although one former
regional firm is expected to soon settle with the agencies.

The delay in finalizing a global yield-burning settlement means that the
firms being sued by Brock might get a court decision on their motion to
dismiss the suit before they sign onto any such agreement. Brock
recently added antitrust charges to the complaint he originally filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida last
year. The suit seeks class action status.

In the revised suit, Brock claims the firms engaged in a "nationwide
conspiracy" to fix prices for Treasury securities they sold municipal
issuers for advance refundings. If upheld, the charges would allow the
county and other defendants to recover treble damages from the firms.

But Merrill and the defendants in the case filed a motion asking the
court to dismiss the antitrust charges, on grounds they are "conclusory
and fail to state a claim." The firms said courts have previously ruled
that plaintiffs should not be permitted to file antitrust charges in
connection with activities regulated by the SEC because they could
potentially establish different standards. The firms also dispute
Brock's attempt in the suit to represent other municipal issuers and to
charge an open-ended number of municipal securities firms, and not just
those named.

Brock has until Dec. 15 to respond. The court could give the firms a
chance to respond and would not rule on the motion to dismiss until all
of the documents were filed. (The Bond Buyer 11-5-1999)


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  * * *