CAR_Public/991116.MBX                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Tuesday, November 16, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 200

                                 Headlines

9 NET: Recipient Of Junk Fax Sues In NJ; TX Case Close To Class Status
ABBOTT LAB: Stull, Stull Announces Amended Securities Suit In Il.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: James V. Bashian Files Securities Suit In New York
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Say Class Action Will Play Little
AVADO BRANDS: Says Shareholder Lawsuit In Georgia Is Without Merit

BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Shepherd & Geller File Securities Suit In California
CA STATE: 9th Cir Strikes Down Fee For Disability Parking Placards
CHESAPEAKE CORP: Subsid. WT Faces Antitrust Suits In Wis. & Elsewhere
DELTA AIR: May Settle Comair Shareholders Suit In Kent. Re Offer To Buy
DSP COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Announces Shareholder Suit

DSP COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Sue Over Proposed Sale To Intel
ELLIGENT CONSULTING: Henry F. Furst Files Securities Suit In New Jersey
EUROPEAN MICRO: Kronish Lieb Says Big Blue Files Securities Suit In NY
FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Lionel Z. Glancy Files Securities Suit In MA
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Poles' Claims; German Firm Profits; Updates On Talks

HULTS FORD: Settles TILA Case; Disputes Atty's Fee; Lodestar Applies
MATAV-CABLE: Announces Lawsuit By Subscribers Under Israel's Law
MATTEL INC: Gold Bennett Files Securities Suit In California
MICROSOFT CORP: Armed With Ruling Of Monopoly, Lawyers Consider Suing
MSOs: Internet Users File LA Suit Over Payment For Athome & Roadrunner

PERVASIVE SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In Texas
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Pomerantz Haudek Says Shares Lose More Than 44%
RESTAURANT TEAMS: Investors Amend Claims On Stock Fraud & Self Dealing
SAFETY INT'L: Lionel Z. Glancy Files Securities Suit In New Jersey
STARNET COMMUNICATIONS: Keller Rohrback Investigates Securities Viol.

U.S. FARMERS: Law Firms Announce Suit Over Fraud In Herbicide Marketing
U.S. RETAILERS: Milberg Weiss Says CA Suit Re False Labeling Will Go On
UNION CARBIDE: Bhopal Gas Disaster Victims File Suit In New York
UNISYS CORP: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
UNISYS CORP: Rabin & Peckel File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania

* The Irish Times Says US Should Protect Citizens From Online Profiling

                             *********

9 NET: Recipient Of Junk Fax Sues In NJ; TX Case Close To Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Junk faxes are annoying and wasteful, but are the helpless, involuntary
recipients certifiable as a class? That's the issue before a Hudson
County judge in a putative class-action suit filed by the author of a
popular Internet guidebook on behalf of himself and all other people
similarly affronted. John Levine, of Trumansburg, N.Y., filed the suit
against 9 Net Avenue Inc., of Secaucus, alleging that the company
violated the 1991 federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
227.

The act allows plaintiffs to bring an action in state court, and allows
courts to impose a $500 fine for each illegal fax. A plaintiff can
receive up to $1,500 per violation if he can prove that the company
transmitting the unwanted fax "willfully and knowingly" sends a fax to
someone who did not want it.

So far, no such suit has been certified as a class action, but a case in
Texas came close. Last April, Houston Cellular Corp., one of about 100
defendants in the suit over the sending of unsolicited "junk" faxes,
agreed to pay $400,000 to an as-yet uncertified class of plaintiffs,
including a group of 11 Houston businesses and individuals who received
the unwanted fax advertisements for the telephone company's services.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are asking Harris County District Judge
Harvey Brown to declare the entire case a class action, so that anyone
who received unwanted faxes from the defendants could share any eventual
settlements or judgment against the remaining defendants.

Steven Zager, an Austin, Texas, lawyer is representing three of the
defendants -- fax advertising companies and their clients, including
restaurants, automobile dealerships and insurance companies -- and is on
a committee overseeing the case for the entire group. Zager predicted
that the plaintiffs will be unsuccessful in winning class certification
and the remaining defendants will prevail.

But, as he told the Austin American-Statesman in a story published on
April 29, he sees the settlement, and a recent decision by Brown to
allow the case to move forward, as an invitation for other lawyers to
file similar suits. "Here, creative, intelligent people motivated by
profit" will seek to "make a serious buck" through such lawsuits, said
Zager, a partner at Austin's Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison who represents
Houston-based Compaq Computer Corp., GTE Mobilnet of Houston Inc., a
unit of Irving-based GTE Corp., and Domino's Pizza Inc. of Ann Arbor,
Mich., in the case.

                       Suit Gets Mixed Reception

The same day that the New Jersey case was filed, Superior Court Judge
Arthur D'Italia issued an order that barred 9 Net and its new owner from
altering, destroying or discarding any business records, computer files
or disks holding address lists that may contain the names of people who
received unsolicited faxes.

However, D'Italia rejected plaintiffs' lawyer Kurt Anderson's request
for an order enjoining the company from sending out unsolicited faxes or
distributing any proceeds of the recent sale of 9 Net to San Jose,
Calif.'s Concentric Network Corp. D'Italia also refused to order
expedited discovery regarding 9 Net's business practices. Instead,
D'Italia scheduled a show-cause hearing for Nov. 19.

The suit stems from a fax that appeared on Levine's machine on June 10
from 9 Net. Addressed only to "Website Owner," the fax touted 9 Net's
free Web hosting services, noting that it hosted approximately 110,000
sites. The fax invited Levine to take advantage of a limited time
promotion and to call a toll-free number to speak to a "hosting
consultant."

Plaintiffs' lawyer Anderson, a partner at Middletown's Giordano,
Halleran & Ciesla, says the fax Levine received was one of several
thousand sent out in a "mass fax," that began on June 9 and ended two
days later. Anderson says that Levine sent 9 Net an invoice for $500 --
the amount allowed for a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act -- but that 9 Net did not respond. Then, says Anderson, Levine
decided to file his suit.

9 Net's lawyer, Anne Fitzpatrick, says there is little basis to Levine's
lawsuit. The company, she said, sold its name and assets to Concentric
last month and is, in effect, no longer in operation. "It exists only in
name," says Fitzpatrick, an associate at Florham Park's Spector &
Ehrenworth. "They are not actually conducting business."
Concentric bought 9 Net for $52 million.

While some may regard the receipt of unwanted faxes as a mere annoyance,
Anderson says there are wider implications.

First, he says, there is the attempt on the part of the solicitors to
shift at least part of the cost of advertising onto consumers who own
fax machines. "Someone has to maintain them and buy ink and paper," says
Anderson, "and technological advances allow faxes to go out in a
mass-broadcast fashion." Typically, a company sending out mass faxes
uses a modem that dials random numbers or sequential numbers until it
receives a response from another fax machine. Then it sends out its fax.

Second, says Anderson, many companies and individuals are using software
that allows faxes to be received into their computers rather than using
a fax machine with fax paper. The potential now is for greater harm,
says Anderson. For example, a mass fax being sent into a large office
with hundreds of computers, all equipped to receive faxes. "It lights up
the office in a single, blasted fax," he says. "Some systems can crash
with that amount of volume." The case is Levine v. 9 Net Avenue Inc.,
HUD-L-7965-99. (New Jersey Law Journal, 158 N.J.L. J. 466, Nov-8-1999)


ABBOTT LAB: Stull, Stull Announces Amended Securities Suit In Il.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Complaint Against Abbott Laboratories on Behalf of a Class
of Persons Who Purchased Abbott Securities During the Period from
3/17/99 - 11/2/99

Notice is hereby given that an amended class action lawsuit was filed on
November 12, 1999, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:ABT) from March 17, 1999 through
and including November 2, 1999.

Throughout the Class Period defendants concealed from shareholders,
potential investors and securities analysts the fact that Abbott was
seriously out of compliance with government quality assurance
regulations at its North Chicago, Illinois, Diagnostic Products Division
plant which manufactures most of the medical diagnostic equipment sold
by Abbott. This adverse state of affairs, which threatened a segment of
Abbott's business which accounts for over 20% of Abbott's annual
revenues, was concealed from the market until September 29, 1999, when
Abbott, for the first time, publicly disclosed the existence of a March
17, 1999 letter from the FDA to Abbott detailing violations found by FDA
inspectors during an inspection that was conducted from September to
November 10, 1998. When the market learned of the existence of the FDA
warning letter on September 29, 1999, the company's stock price plunged
and plaintiff and other similarly situated were substantially harmed. It
was, however, only about a month later, on November 2, 1999, that the
market learned of the true extent of the damage to Abbott resulting from
the FDA inspections and warning letter, when Abbott agreed to pay a $100
million civil penalty and pull 125 types of medical-diagnostic test kits
off the United States market as a consequence of the FDA inspections and
warning letter.

Plaintiff 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 60 days from October 20, 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 L. Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling
toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com or by fax at
212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY 10017.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: James V. Bashian Files Securities Suit In New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is given November 12, 1999 that a class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased the
securities of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. between October 8, 1999 and
October 13, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges A&F and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Sections 10(b) and
20(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that
defendants failed to disclose to plaintiff and the class known material
adverse facts in regard to declining sales trends. On October 13, 1999,
when A&F belatedly disclosed the material adverse information, the price
of the Company's common stock plummeted from its Class Period high of
$39.750 per share to trade as low as $23.375 per share.

If you purchased A&F securities during the Class Period you may, not
later than December 17, 1999, move the court to serve as a lead
plaintiff, provided you meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to
discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or
your rights or interests with respect to this matter, please contact the
following:

Contact: Law Offices of James V. Bashian, New York James V. Bashian,
Esq. 212/921-4110 or 800/556-8856 or Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer
LLP, New York John Halebian, Esq. jhalebian@whhf.com or Shannon Cooper,
Paralegal 877/935-7400 (toll free) or 212/935-7400 scooper@whhf.com


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Say Class Action Will Play Little
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions will play little part in the future of asbestos
litigation, according to experts at Mealey Publications' Asbestos
Conference in Boston. Legislation and other options, such as trial
consolidation, were discussed by speakers. The U.S. Supreme Court is not
likely to allow class actions to play a significant role in resolving
asbestos disputes in the wake of the court's rejection of the Ahearn and
Georgine global class settlements, said Walter Dellinger, former U.S.
Solicitor General and now Professor of Law of Duke University Law School
in Durham, N.C.

The objections to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class
certification "were merely the tip of the iceberg," Dellinger said. The
court did not reach any constitutional and statutory issues after
addressing the Rule 23 issues, he noted. Dellinger said he feels the
justices also are skeptical about whether the adjudication process can
solve social problems. "There are lots of class actions that are not
going to pass muster in the Supreme Court," said Dellinger, particularly
those that stray from the traditional settlement model.

                      Congress Missed Opportunity

Judges from across the country also discussed ways to resolve asbestos
litigation. "I think Congress lay down on the job 30 to 40 years ago.
Congress should have instituted a workers' comp type arrangement," said
Justice Hiller B. Zobel of the Massachusetts Superior Court. "Congress
should have taken a role and it's late to be doing that now," agreed
Justice Helen Freedman of the New York County Supreme Court. "Class
actions don't have much of a future in New York," said Freedman, who
added that she didn't completely agree that class actions are dead in
all mass torts, such as fen-phen litigation. "Massachusetts is the dying
red giant of asbestos litigation. We're what the future will look like,"
said Justice Zobel, citing his state's shrinking asbestos docket.

                           Trial Consolidation

Judge Charles E. Lance of the Milam County District Court in Texas said
class actions are not very popular in Texas. "I think consolidation is
the way to go, in my mind," said Judge Lance, who added that a
legislative solution may be necessary. "It's a national problem and it
deserves a national solution."

Judge Ken M. Kawaichi of the Alameda County Superior Court in California
suggested consolidating cases for discovery and other purposes but not
necessarily for trial.

Consolidation also eliminates punitive damages, and often results in a
fairer resolution, he said. Trials can result in "wildly disparate
verdicts for the same disease," Judge Freedman added.

Justice Zobel noted that consolidation is a useful tool that "maximizes
the opportunities for settlement."

Justice Freedman said courts have to be alert to the practice of
plaintiff firms refusing to settle good cases unless weaker cases are
also settled. She also addressed the usefulness of reverse-bifurcated
trials. "I have found the results are pretty much the same as an
all-issues trial because it's not a new tort," said Justice Freedman.
(Mealey's Litigation Report: Asbestos, Vol. 14; No. 17, Oct-8-1999)


AVADO BRANDS: Says Shareholder Lawsuit In Georgia Is Without Merit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Avado Brands, Inc. (Nasdaq: AVDO) announced November 12, 1999 that a
purported class action shareholder lawsuit has been filed against the
Company and its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Morgan
County, Georgia, entitled Herbert Behrens v. Avado Brands, Inc., et al.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and its
Directors intend to violate their fiduciary obligations to shareholders
by approving a management proposal to acquire the Company. This proposal
was filed as an exhibit to a Form 13-D filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by the management group on November 10, 1999. The
Company and Directors believe that this suit is without merit and intend
to vigorously deny the allegations of the Complaint.

As previously reported, the management proposal has been referred to a
Special Committee of the Board of Directors which has been created to
evaluate strategic alternatives which could enhance and maximize
shareholder value. The Special Committee has determined that disclosure
with respect to possible strategic alternatives, the parties to any such
arrangements, and the possible terms of any such proposals or
arrangements might jeopardize the commencement or continuation of any
discussions or negotiations that the Special Committee may conduct. The
Special Committee accordingly has determined not to disclose the terms
of any such discussions or negotiations until an agreement has been
reached or until otherwise required by law. There can be no assurance
that any discussions concerning strategic alternatives will result in
any transaction being authorized or consummated.


BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Shepherd & Geller File Securities Suit In California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Shepherd & Geller, LLC announced November 12, 1999 that
it has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all individuals and
institutional investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Bergen
Brunswig Corp. (NYSE:BBC) common stock between March 16, 1999 and
October 14, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making material
misrepresentations and omitting material facts during the Class Period
regarding the financial condition of Stadtlander Drug Co., Inc., which
Bergen Brunswig acquired in January, 1999. By issuing these allegedly
false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices, and the Company was able to acquire
PharMerica for Bergen Brunswig stock. When the truth about the Company
was revealed, the price of the stock fell sharply.

If you have any questions about how you may be able to recover for your
losses, or if you would like to consider serving as one of the lead
plaintiffs in this lawsuit, you must take appropriate action by December
21, 1999. You are encouraged to call the Firm Paul J. Geller SHEPHERD &
GELLER, LLC 7200 West Camino Real, Suite 203 Boca Raton, FL 33433 (561)
750-3000 Toll Free: 1-888-262-3131 E-mail: jstein@classactioncounsel.com
or visit the Firm's website at www.classactioncounsel.com


CA STATE: 9th Cir Strikes Down Fee For Disability Parking Placards
------------------------------------------------------------------
A 6 biennial fee imposed by the State of California for disability
parking placards violated the ADA because it qualified as a surcharge
for measures required by that statute. Dare v. State of California, No.
97-56065 (9th Cir. 9/16/99).

The state maintained a priority parking program for qualifying disabled
individuals and veterans, providing them with extensive priority parking
and exemptions from all parking meter fees and most parking time
restrictions. It limited these privileges to vehicles displaying
state-issued disability license plates or parking placards, enforcing
these limitations through fines.

The state issued disability license plates to qualifying vehicle owners,
and also issued disability parking placards to disabled individuals for
a 6 fee. These fees helped to defray the cost of the disability parking
program.

In August 1996, the disabled plaintiffs filed a class action suit
challenging the state's 6 placard fee as a violation of Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its regulations. The fee constituted
an impermissible surcharge upon measures necessary to provide the
nondiscriminatory treatment of individuals and groups mandated by the
ADA, they asserted. A federal district court granted partial summary
judgment. Declaring the fee to be an impermissible surcharge, it
permanently enjoined the state's imposition of the fee.

In affirming, a majority of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
initially held that the 6 fee constituted a surcharge for required
measures, in violation of the ADA and its implementing regulations. The
state's argument that the 6 fee constituted partial payment of waived
meter fees had no merit. Instead, "charging disabled people for parking
that would otherwise be free constitutes discrimination in the provision
of access to public buildings, a measure required under the ADA," the
court reasoned.

Rejecting the state's attempt to raise Eleventh Amendment immunity, it
also found ADA provisions to be congruent with Congress's power to
enforce the Equal Protection Clause. The ADA also qualified as a
congruent response to discrimination against individuals with
disabilities.

Last, the prohibition contained in 28 C.F.R. 35.130(f) against states
charging even de minimus administrative fees did not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment, the court determined. The regulation was not
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the ADA. "If public entities place
a surcharge on measures that help disabled people achieve this parity
[in public services], disabled people then are paying fees others do not
and so are not being treated equally," it explained. (National Public
Employment Reporter, Section: Americans With Disabilities Act; Vol. 3,
No. 7, Nov-3-1999)


CHESAPEAKE CORP: Subsid. WT Faces Antitrust Suits In Wis. & Elsewhere
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Tissue Mills Inc., (WT), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Chesapeake, has been identified by the federal government and the State
of Wisconsin as a potentially responsible party with respect to possible
natural resource damages and Superfund liability in the Fox River and
Green Bay System. See Note 8 for further information regarding this
matter.

On May 13, 1997, the Attorney General of Florida filed a civil complaint
against WT alleging violations of antitrust laws. The complaint also
names nine other commercial and industrial tissue manufacturers and
seeks compensatory monetary damages, civil penalties, and injunctive
relief. Other private and state civil antitrust class actions have also
been filed against WT (or against the Company, identifying WT as a
"division" of the Company) and against the other defendants. As of
October 3, 1999, the JV formed by WT and Georgia-Pacific Corporation
(G-P) assumed all liabilities associated with this litigation.

Effective October 3, 1999, Wisconsin Tissue Mills Inc. completed the
formation of a joint venture with G-P through which the companies
combined their commercial tissue businesses. WT contributed
substantially all of its assets and liabilities of the Company's tissue
business to the joint venture, known as Georgia-Pacific Tissue, LLC and
received a 5% equity interest in the JV and a tax-deferred cash
distribution of approximately $755 million (the "Special . G-P
contributed certain of its commercial tissue assets and related
liabilities to the JV in return for a 95% equity interest.
DELTA AIR: May Settle Comair Shareholders Suit In Kent. Re Offer To Buy

Delta Air Lines has reached a tentative settlement in a lawsuit filed by
shareholders of Comair who are dissatisfied with Delta's offer to buy
the regional airline. The chief provision is Delta's agreement to
eliminate a $50 million penalty Comair would have to pay if the deal is
terminated if Comair accepts a better offer.

That could open the door for Comair to seek a buyer willing to pay more
than the Delta offer of $23.50 per share, or $1.8 billion in cash,
plaintiffs' attorneys said. This means it doesn't matter what I think
Comair is worth or what Comair shareholders thinks Comair is worth,"
said Michael G. Brautigam, a Cincinnati attorney who filed the class
action lawsuit for shareholders in Kentucky's Boone County Circuit
Court. "This levels the playing field and means the market can decide
what Comair is worth," he said.

Despite that, officials at Cincinnati-based Comair said the deal remains
the right move for the 22-year-old airline and its shareholders.

Brautigam said the settlement, which still must be approved by Boone
Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger, also calls for Delta and Comair to make a
detailed financial presentation to the plaintiffs. Using documents
prepared by investment bankers who reviewed the deal and recommended it
to Comair's board, the presentation would seek to explain why the offer
is in Comair's best interest. Comair's board unanimously approved the
offer on Oct. 17. Both airlines were nearing the end of a 10-year
marketing agreement when the deal was announced on Oct. 18.

Delta officials, who said they entered the settlement to avoid "the
burden, expense and distraction of further litigation," had a slightly
different interpretation of that portion of the settlement. Delta said
it calls only for the airlines to provide those documents to the
plaintiffs. Meanwhile, the Nov. 19 deadline for Delta's tender offer
draws nearer. (Scripps Howard News Service Nov-2-1999)


DSP COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Announces Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced on behalf of the public shareholders
of DSP Communications, Inc. (NYSE: DSP) alleging that on October 14,
1999, the directors of DSP entered into a merger agreement in violation
of their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take steps
to maximize shareholder value in connection with the sale of DSP to
Intel Corporation ("Intel") and ignoring and/or failing to take steps to
protect against the directors' own conflicts of interest.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the public shareholders
of DSP's common stock (the "Class"). Plaintiff is represented by the law
firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, who has expertise in
prosecuting shareholder class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud. If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiffs' counsel, William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Milberg Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at wsl@mwbhl.com


DSP COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Sue Over Proposed Sale To Intel
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced on behalf of the public shareholders
of DSP Communications, Inc. (NYSE: DSP) alleging that on October 14,
1999, the directors of DSP entered into a merger agreement in violation
of their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take steps
to maximize shareholder value in connection with the sale of DSP to
Intel Corporation ("Intel") and ignoring and/or failing to take steps to
protect against the directors' own conflicts of interest.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the public shareholders
of DSP's common stock. Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, William Lerach or Darren
Robbins of Milberg Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at wsl@mwbhl.com


ELLIGENT CONSULTING: Henry F. Furst Files Securities Suit In New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice by Henry F. Furst, Esq. on November 12, 1999:

Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, Henry F. Furst, Esq. gives notice that a class
action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of a Class of persons who purchased
securities issued by Elligent Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ECGR) at
artificially inflated prices during the period December 15, 1998 through
July 29, 1999 inclusive and who were damaged thereby.

The Complaint, charges that throughout the Class Period, the Company and
its chief executive officer and director Andreas Typaldos violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by
engaging in a scheme to artificially inflate the market price of
Elligent securities and deceive the investing public by making
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact concerning the
financial condition of the Company. Any member of the proposed Class who
desires to be appointed lead plaintiff in this action must file a motion
with the Court no later than sixty (60) days from November 12, 1999.
Class members must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead
plaintiff. If you have any questions or information regarding this
action, or if you are interested in serving as a lead plaintiff in this
action, you may call or write:
Henry F. Furst, Esq., 80 Main Street, West Orange, New Jersey 07052,
973-324-1000. Contact: Henry F. Furst, Esq., 973-324-1000


EUROPEAN MICRO: Kronish Lieb Says Big Blue Files Securities Suit In NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was announced November 12, 1999 by Kronish Lieb Weiner &
Hellman LLP:

Big Blue Products filed a lawsuit November 12, 1999 seeking $10 million
plus in damages from European Micro Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: EMCC) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The complaint was filed by Jeff Alnwick, Marie Alnwick and Big Blue
Products of Huntington, Long Island. The Alnwicks and Big Blue Products
are represented by Jay Spievack and Amy Held of Kronish Lieb Weiner &
Hellman LLP, a New York City law firm.

The 167 page verified complaint alleges that EMCC and one of its
subsidiaries engaged in an illegal scheme to defraud their joint venture
partners in connection with an EMCC affiliate's joint venture company --
Big Blue Europe B.V. The verified complaint alleges that EMCC's wholly
owned subsidiary, European Micro Plc, is a fifty percent shareholder of
Big Blue Europe and that its principal shareholders, John Gallagher and
Harry Shields, are two of the joint venture's four-person Board of
Directors.

The verified complaint asserts claims against defendant EMCC for fraud,
aiding and abetting fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with
contract.

The verified complaint also asserts claims against defendant European
Micro Plc for fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract, and tortious interference with contract.

Finally, the verified complaint asserts claims against defendants John
Gallagher and Harry Shields, for fraud, misappropriation of trade
secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and tortious interference with
contract.

The verified complaint alleges that the Alnwicks are fifty percent or
greater shareholders of Big Blue Europe and the remaining two directors
of the joint venture's four-person Board of Directors. Therefore, the
Alnwicks also asserted certain claims on behalf of Big Blue Europe
against defendants EMCC, European Micro Plc and Gallagher and Shields.

If you have any questions regarding the lawsuit, please contact Jay
Spievack at (212) 479-6000.


FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Lionel Z. Glancy Files Securities Suit In MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 21(D)(A)(3)(a)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Notice is hereby given that a Class Action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Focus Enhancements, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCSE) between July 17, 1997
and February 19, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Focus and its Chief Executive Officer with
violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff
claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the nature of
Focus' operations drove Focus' stock price to a Class Period high
of$7.1875 per share and enabled insiders to profit from sales of Focus
common stock at artificially inflated prices. Focus common stock fell to
a low of $1.125 per share, inflicting enormous damages on investors.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and is
represented by the Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, not later than 60 days from November 9, 1999, 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 Lionel Z. Glancy, Esquire, or Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of the
Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311,
Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at 310/201-9150 or toll-free
888/773-9224 or by e-mail to info@glancylaw.com


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Poles' Claims; German Firm Profits; Updates On Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poles on nazi farms fume over exclusion from fund. They were deported at
gunpoint, beaten and forced to work 16-hour days, often for years. Now
Poles who had to toil on farms in Nazi Germany fear they must endure one
final humiliation: exclusion. They are pointedly being left out of a
compensation fund proposed by the German government and German companies
who used forced and slave labor in Adolph Hitler's war effort.

While almost nobody is satisfied with the dlrs 3.3 billion proposal,
Poland is especially upset heading into the next round of talks Tuesday
in Bonn, Germany. Of an estimated half-million forced- and slave-labor
victims alive in Poland today, 220,000 suffered on German farms.

German chief negotiator Otto Lambsdorff didn't help matters much when,
by way of explanation, he said the use of labor from eastern Europe at
harvest time in Germany was a ''natural historical phenomenon.''

That enraged surviving victims, some of whom were snatched off the
streets of their home towns without notice. ''A temporary migration of
one's own choice is something very different from forced deportation at
gunpoint, in cattle wagons, to a market where you are selected for work
like a black slave,'' said Miroslaw Podsiadlo, deputy head the
Association of Poles Wronged by the Third Reich.

But noted Polish author Andrzej Szczypiorski says he can understand the
distinction Lambsdorff sought to make, even if it is not fair to
everyone. ''I, for example, was in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp
and should be compensated for that,'' Szczypiorski said when asked by
the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag to comment on Lambsdorff's remark.
''You cannot compare the fate of Jew from the Warsaw Ghetto to a forced
laborer in Bavaria.''

German companies proposed the fund to compensate people forced to work
in industry and to protect themselves from U.S. class-action lawsuits.
They are reluctant to add hundreds of thousands of farm workers to the
mix. ''Their situation hasn't been so bad,'' said the industry fund
spokesman, Wolfgang Gibowski. ''You really can't compare this situation
to the situation of other forced laborers who had to work for industry
or the state.'' He said there would be provisions to compensate farm
workers in certain ''hardship'' cases, but no other payments are
contemplated.

That makes the forthcoming talks even more crucial for Polish officials,
who fear that if farm workers are left out of a deal now, Germany will
be tempted to put the issue off indefinitely.

Poland, the source of about a third of an estimated 7 million Nazi-era
slave laborers, says one reason farm workers are being excluded is that
the compensation package on offer is absurdly low. ''It is insufficient
and unacceptable,'' said Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek's chief aide, Jerzy
Widzyk, the chief Polish representative in the talks.

Lambsdorff, at a Berlin briefing for Polish journalists, stood his
ground. ''Poland demands too much,'' the newspaper Zycie quoted him as
saying. ''Polish expectations cannot be met.''

Both sides are trying hard not to let the issue undermine Polish-German
relations. Germany is Poland's biggest trading partner and German
companies are the biggest direct investors in Poland, having pumped in
more than dlrs 6 billion since communist rule was toppled in 1989.

Buzek sounded hopeful after meeting with German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder last week during celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the
Berlin Wall's collapse. ''Things are going in the right direction,'' he
said. ''German authorities are showing understanding for a complex
solution.''

Polish officials have hinted at a scale that would somehow link payments
to the amount of suffering endured. But the implication that farm
workers had it easier than others irks survivors like Jozef Wolan, 74,
who was forced to work on a farm near Magdeburg, southwest of Berlin,
for three years. ''Maybe we had some more food, but the work was harder
and longer than in industry, and in all weather,'' he said. ''I
survived, but if I got no compensation, I would say everywhere that
Germans are a vile nation treating others with contempt.''

                  Lawyers Cite German Firms' Profits

Slave labor earned Nazi-era German companies the equivalent of nearly $
100 billion, attorneys said Monday in an attempt to heighten pressure on
Germany to offer more compensation for survivors. A day before a new
two-day round of compensation negotiations in Bonn, Germany, the figure
was cited in a report prepared by a German research foundation for the
lawyers. German companies and the government have offered 6 billion
marks ($ 3.2 billion/3.1 billion euros) for people forced to work under
the Nazis during World War II.

Attorneys and survivor groups have attacked the offer as far too low.
Attorney Michael Witti, who unveiled the study Monday, said he realized
the figure it cited 180 billion marks ($ 95 billion/92 billion euros) at
current exchange rates and adjusted for inflation was ''outside the
realm'' of what could be negotiated. But he and his colleague Edward
Fagan made it clear that U.S. class-action lawyers expect Germany to
significantly improve its offer. ''We're very far apart,'' Fagan told a
news conference.

There also were frictions on the German side. German companies who have
proposed a compensation fund continued to haggle with the government
Monday about how much each side should pay. A spokesman for the
companies urged the government to kick in more money and split the
payments 50-50.

                           Updates On Talks

German industry would welcome increase in government's contribution to
Nazi labor fund With BC-Germany-Nazi Labor-Glance. German firms who have
proposed a fund to compensate Nazi-era laborers hope Germany's
government will kick in more money and split the payments 50-50, the
spokesman for the fund said Monday. Rhetoric between German industry and
government heated up ahead of negotiations Tuesday and Wednesday in
Bonn, with each side hinting the other should raise its offer.

So far, industry has pledged 4 billion marks ($ 2.1 billion/2.05 billion
euros), twice the government's proposed 2 billion marks ($ 1.1 billion/1
billion euros). The government has offered to put in another 1 billion
marks (dlrs 530 million/510 million euros) if industry makes a similar
50 percent increase. But industry has balked, saying it has only raised
2 billion marks so far. Wolfgang Gibowski, spokesman for the industry
fund, said the firms would instead ''welcome'' an increase in the
government's offer so they would split payments evenly. ''It was the
state who caused all those events with World War II, as well as with all
such institutions like forced labor,'' Gibowski said. ''The German state
is the successor of the old Reich.''

But the German envoy to the talks, Otto Lambsdorff, urged industry to
better its offer. ''German business has an overall responsibility for
what occurred in World War II,'' he told German radio. ''You can't base
it on individual companies and how much they profited from it.''

German companies proposed the fund under pressure of class-action suits
in the United States. The firms are hoping for immunity from future
lawsuits and are seeking assurances from the U.S. government that it
will help them gain protection from legal action.

Negotiations have stalled in the last two months over the amount to be
paid to former slave and forced laborers. This week's meeting is the
sixth in the talks, which have alternated between Washington and Bonn.
An earlier target of Sept. 1 the 60th anniversary of the start of World
War II passed without a settlement. Last week, the U.S. envoy to the
talks, Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, said he didn't think
an agreement would be concluded at this week's session. All sides say
they realize the need to resolve the issue quickly, as the survivors who
would receive the money are elderly and more are dying every day.

The fund would compensate about 235,000 slave laborers, people who were
expected to be worked to death in concentration camps. Also included are
hundreds of thousands of other forced laborers, mostly non-Jews from
Eastern Europe, who were put to work to fuel Hitler's war machine. The
slave laborers will receive higher payments than the forced laborers
under the fund, but the exact ratio has yet to be worked out. The number
of people to be covered by the fund is also disputed. Lawyers say it is
about 2.3 million, while industry says it is around 1.5 million.

Gibowski said Monday that an additional company will make a public
commitment to the fund shortly. So far, 16 German firms _ including
DaimlerChrysler, Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen have said they are
contributing to the fund. About 50 firms are involved, but all are not
making their names public.

Along with German and U.S. government representatives, the talks include
class-action lawyers, German industry, Jewish groups and the governments
of Israel, Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Belarus and the Czech Republic. (AP
Worldstream Nov-15-1999)


HULTS FORD: Settles TILA Case; Disputes Atty's Fee; Lodestar Applies
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the appropriate amount of attorney's fees under the Truth
in Lending Act, use the lodestar calculation method and multiply the
number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable
hourly rate. To determine the reasonableness of the hourly rate,
consider an attorney's locale, experience and expertise. Haak v. Hults
Ford-Mercury Inc., et al., No. 98-C-510-S (W.D. Wis. 9/24/99).

Jeffrey Haak sued Hults Ford-Mercury Inc. and Firstar Bank under the
TILA. Haak alleged in his class action that Hults failed to disclose it
retained a portion of the amount paid for an extended warranty and
credit insurance.

After the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
certified the class, the parties settled the dispute. The settlement
terms called for Hults to pay Haak's costs and attorney's fees. When
Hults disputed plaintiff's counsel's hourly rate, the costs and the
amount of time expended on Haak's case, the District Court reviewed the
matter.

Writing for the court, Judge John C. Shabaz explained that the standard
for calculating a fee award under Section 1640 of the TILA is the
lodestar method - the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by
a reasonable hourly rate.

Hults disputed the reasonableness of plaintiff's counsel's billing rate.
O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates in Chicago charged
Haak 275 per hour. Specifically, Hults challenged Bragg's hourly rate on
grounds that while the hourly rate was reasonable in the Chicago market,
it was unreasonable in Madison, Wis.

The court noted that it had previously awarded Bragg fees at similar
rates. It then rejected the defendant's argument for three reasons.
First, the District Court relied on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals' decision in Gusman v. Unisys Corp., 986 F.2d 1146 (7th Cir.
1993), that "pricey big city lawyers" rates are permitted unless a
defendant can prove the case did not justify them. Second, the District
Court held that Bragg's rate was supported not only by his location but
also by his experience and expertise. Lastly, the court found that Haak
"employed a lower priced local attorney in collaboration with Bragg so
that the combined effect appears reasonable, particularly for a case
certified as a class action."

Hults next contended that Bragg should charge a reduced rate for his
travel time. Again, the court was not persuaded to depart from 7th
Circuit precedent. In Henry v. Webermeier, 738 F.2d 188 (7th Cir. 1984),
the 7th Circuit held that travel time should be billed at the same
hourly rate as an attorney's regularly working time because the "travel
time represents a lost opportunity to bill another client ..."

The District Court, in applying the lodestar calculation method, also
considered the reasonableness of the number of hours expended by
plaintiffs' counsel. In response to Hult's argument that duplicate
entries by Carla O. Andres of Andres Law Office in Portage, Wis., and
Bragg for drafting the amended complaint and reply brief should be
eliminated, the court explained, "The fact that both attorneys billed
time on these activities does not suggest duplication. ...The fact that
both attorneys billed time on a task is at least as likely to evidence
efficiency as duplication."

Hult's further claimed that a reduction should be given for work
performed on unsuccessful or inappropriate claims under the Wisconsin
Consumer Act and against Firstar. Although the District Court agreed
with Hults that the plaintiff could not recover 727 in fees incurred in
connection with Firstar because Firstar was dismissed from the case, it
refused to deny recovery of attorney's fees incurred in connection with
the Wisconsin Consumer Act claims. That act, explained the court,
incorporates the same requirements as the TILA and independently
provides for the recovery of attorney's fees.

The court awarded 28,528.50 in attorney's fees and costs to the
plaintiff.

Bragg and Andres represented Haak. Jeffrey A. Schmeckpeper of Kasdorf,
Lewis & Swietlik in Milwaukee represented Hults. John Koeppel of Dewitt,
Ross & Stevens in Madison, Wis., represented Firstar. (Consumer
Financial Services Law Report Nov-3-1999)


MATAV-CABLE: Announces Lawsuit By Subscribers Under Israel's Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matav-Cable Systems Media Ltd. (NASDAQ: MATVY) announced that on
November 14, 1999 the Company received notice of a claim filed against
the Company by a subscriber requesting to be considered a representative
of the Class of the Company's subscribers in accordance with paragraph
46 of Israel's Restrictive Practices Law. If the claim is recognized as
a class action suit, the Court will be asked to require the Company to
compensate its subscribers a total of approximately 528 million New
Israeli Shekels in relation to subscription fees charged since
April,1996. The Company must file a response within 20 days.At this
stage, the Company is studying the details of the complaint.

Matav is an operator and provider of broadband Cable TV services in
Israel, operating in exclusive franchise areas. Contact:
Lippert/Heilshorn & Associates Inc. Jody Burfening, 212/838-3777 ext.
106 jody@lhai.com or Matav-Cable Systems Media Ltd. Shalom Bronstein 972
9 602 229 or Fax: 972 9 602 286


MATTEL INC: Gold Bennett Files Securities Suit In California
------------------------------------------------------------
Notice on class action on behalf of former Broderbund Software
shareholders Against Mattel, Inc. and others for damages resulting from
The Learning Company-Broderbund Merger, issued by Gold Bennett & Cera
LLP, November 12, 1999:

Gold Bennett & Cera LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
CV-99-11672-R (CTx), on behalf of all former Broderbund Software, Inc.
shareholders who acquired shares of The Learning Company common stock in
connection with the TLC-Broderbund merger on August 31, 1998.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2) and
77o. Mattel, Inc. (NYSE: MAT), which acquired TLC earlier this year, is
named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The complaint also names TLC's
directors at the time of the Merger.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Joint Proxy
Statement and Prospectus dated July 14, 1998, issued by TLC and signed
by TLC's directors, contained materially false or misleading statements
regarding, among other things, TLC's revenue, net income and earnings
per share. Specifically, the complaint alleges that TLC improperly
recognized revenue on sales where it had granted the right to return
unsold merchandise, that TLC delayed timely recording product returns
from its customers, and that TLC billed customers or charged customer
credit cards for software products that it knew, or should have known,
was unavailable.

Plaintiffs are represented by the San Francisco law firm of Gold Bennett
& Cera LLP. If you received TLC common stock in exchange for Broderbund
common stock on or after August 31, 1998, you may no later than 60 days
from date of notice, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff, if you
so choose. To serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain
legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact Joseph M. Barton of Gold Bennett & Cera LLP, 595 Market Street,
Suite 2300, San Francisco, California 94105, by telephone at
800-778-1822 or 415-777-2230, by facsimile at 415-777-5189 or by e-mail
at jbarton@gbcsf.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Armed With Ruling Of Monopoly, Lawyers Consider Suing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than a week after a federal judge branded the software giant a
brute and monopolist, veterans from the cigarette wars are plotting to
sue the company in a wave of private litigation. If the onslaught
unfolds as expected, teams of lawyers will turn Microsoft into the next
Philip Morris, tangling the company in courts across the country. "We're
looking at it, we're seriously looking at it," said Stanley Chesley, a
prominent class-action tobacco lawyer. "Millions of people bought
Windows, and if the company overcharged consumers, it should be held
responsible."

Lawyers have been emboldened by a blunt ruling by Thomas Penfield
Jackson, the federal judge hearing the government's antitrust suit
against Microsoft Corp. The judge issued findings of fact that concluded
that Microsoft ruthlessly exploited its market power to strong-arm
corporate customers and competitors alike. The judge also determined
that a range of Microsoft tactics stifled innovation, reduced consumer
choice and led to higher prices.

Jackson's words are viewed in some parts of the legal community as the
combination to a padlocked fortune. Antitrust law grants triple damages
to plaintiffs who prevail, so if consumers overpaid for copies of
Windows by just $10 a piece, verdicts could easily wind up in the
billions of dollars, say specialists.

Typically, private lawyers must spend fortunes marshaling the manpower
and research needed to prove that a company is a monopolist and bully.
With Jackson's ruling in hand, plaintiffs could effectively piggyback
off the government's research and the opinions of its experts. "It makes
a hell of a road map," said John Coale, a Washington plaintiffs' lawyer
who played a leading role in negotiating the $ 260 billion tobacco
settlement in 1998.

One company has already found its way to the courthouse. Last Monday,
Seastrom Associates, a small advertising firm, filed a lawsuit in New
York seeking class status for all that the state's consumers, alleging
that Microsoft abused its power by overcharging for Windows.

Microsoft officials say that the contemplated suits are baseless and
ironic given the judge's findings that the company charges less than its
rivals, such as IBM, in the operating system market. "We think it's a
sad day for consumers when there's litigation threatened against a
company that brought enormous innovation to the market place and helped
drive down prices," said Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesman. He added
that the courts findings "do not have any weight or bearing on any other
lawsuit until they are entered in a final ruling by Judge Jackson."

But some lawyers don't plan to wait the months it might take for Jackson
to issue his conclusions of law. Some contend that the findings of fact
alone could be deployed in private litigation; judges, they maintain,
are granted discretion about what is allowed into evidence and many
might conclude that the findings are carefully enough considered to
stand on their own.

Most lawyers, however, are likely to pounce after Jackson's conclusion
and remedies are announced, figuring that those will hold more sway then
with other judges. Indeed, the threat of an outpouring of lawsuits is
one reason that experts believe Microsoft might try to settle the case
in the coming months.

Regardless, Microsoft won't be an easy target. One lawyer estimated that
a national class action would cost at least $ 3 million, a price that
might daunt all but the deepest pocketed firms.

Then there is the matter of finding plaintiffs. Antitrust law generally
blocks actions by indirect purchasers of products, so anyone whose
version of Windows came pre-loaded into their computers would likely be
prohibited from suing. That, of course, leaves the multitudes who
purchased the Windows 98 upgrade in retail stores. And at least one
lawsuit has been filed alleging that computer makers conspired with
Microsoft to inflate prices, a theory that would bring millions of
computer buyers into any class of litigants.

Other possible plaintiffs could include companies that lost market share
or were put out of business by Microsoft. Jackson repeatedly asserted
that Microsoft stifled innovation, statements that could buttress claims
of lost profits by, for instance, rival makers of spreadsheets. "You can
imagine a software maker arguing, 'We had a very viable program here and
through your monopolization of the operating system you stomped all over
it,' " said Michael Williams of PM Industrial Economics, a San Francisco
consulting firm. "The company then says, 'But for Microsoft's actions we
would have earned X.' "

The problem is that many of Microsoft's rivals also have agreements with
the company and are unlikely to jeopardize their commercial
relationships with a lawsuit. Corel Corp., for instance, would seem a
possible litigant because its product, WordPerfect, has lost market
share to Microsoft's own word-processing product. But Corel also
joint-partners with Microsoft on Visual Basic, a progamming language,
and isn't considering litigation any time soon. "We compete with
Microsoft, but we also cooperate with them," said Catherine Hughes,
Corel's spokeswoman.

Computer makers themselves could get into the action. According to
experts, companies such as Gateway Inc. and Dell Computer Corp. could
allege that they lost money because Microsoft exerted strict control
over the desktop space that users see when they log on to their
computers. Lawyers might argue that those start-up screens, viewed every
day by countless consumers, could have generated advertising revenue for
the companies.

But the Dells of the world also need peace with Microsoft, which, after
all, sells a product that nearly all of its customers demand. Officials
at Gateway and International Business Machines Corp. declined to
comment. Dell and Compaq Computer Corp. officials did not return calls.

Still, there could be dozens of companies ready to allege that they have
been mortally wounded by Microsoft. "Antitrust doesn't require you to be
dead and buried six feet under the ground to get some relief and
compensation," said Keith Shugarman of Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar.
"Companies don't need to wait for Microsoft to drive them out of
business to sue." (The Washington Post, Nov-12-1999)


MSOs: Internet Users File LA Suit Over Payment For Athome & Roadrunner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another suit has been filed in open access debate, although telecom
attorneys we spoke with said it was likely to have less impact than AT&T
suit in Portland, Ore., (CD Nov 2 p2) or GTE's in Pittsburgh (CD Oct 26
p1). In what could become class-action suit, 4 high-speed cable Internet
users filed suit in U.S. Dist. Court, L.A., against 8 MSOs. It seeks to
stop cable operators from requiring subscriber to pay for proprietary
cable modem service RoadRunner or AtHome in order to access another ISP.
Meanwhile, Cambridge, Mass., became latest municipality to support open
access in its review of MediaOne franchise transfer to AT&T, and senior
House Telecom Subcommittee Democrat Markey (Mass.) cited his state in
backing right of municipalities to mandate open access. Joining debate
was iAdvance coalition, with Exec. Dir. Marty Machowsky calling for open
access in speech to American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC)
Telecom & Information Technology Task Force meeting Fri. in New Orleans.

MSOs named in L.A. suit are Arahova Communications, AT&T, Cablevision
Systems, Comcast, Cox, Jones Intercable, MediaOne, Time Warner Cable.
Plaintiffs are from Seattle, but attorneys said L.A. was chosen for suit
because both AtHome and RoadRunner are offered there. Suit was filed by
antitrust law firm Susman Godfrey's Seattle office, with Parker Folse as
lead attorney; Folse once clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
William Rehnquist. Folse said that under antitrust law, MSOs' actions
with proprietary Internet access partners have been "illegal,
anticompetitive and anticonsumer." Susman Godfrey has sued AT&T before,
it said, once representing Bell Atlantic. Along with injunction against
requiring purchase of AtHome or RoadRunner, suit seeks damages but
doesn't specify dollar amount. MSOs we spoke with had no comment.

Cambridge denied MediaOne's transfer to AT&T, with City Mgr. Robert
Healy saying in letter to AT&T that MSO needed to have open access
provision as part of franchise agreement: "Without such a requirement,
AT&T's power to constrict access to its broadband network threatens the
Internet's open end-to-end architecture." City previously had asked AT&T
to include open access language in its franchise agreement but company
refused. This was 5th franchise authority that has moved to impose open
access on AT&T in its acquisition of TCI and MediaOne franchises,
although MediaOne and AT&T pointed out recently that 1,345 local
authorities have approved franchise transfers without open access
requirements.

Meanwhile, Markey wrote letter to Boston Globe citing open access
advocates in his state (N. Andover also has imposed open access) and
outlining his fight for open access in Washington (HR- 173). He said
municipalities had right to act if federal govt. was idle on open
access: "If the FCC continues to oppose open access as a national
policy, then local authorities should take whatever action they can to
protect consumer choice and the competition that promises so much for
the economy... Local efforts to secure open access to broadband
facilities are welcome expressions of support for the critical principle
of nondiscriminatory access, particularly in light of the FCC's failure
to insist on open Internet platforms."

IAdvance's Machowsky told state legislators "the open access battle is
being fought in the courts, before local city councils, boards of
supervisors, through public referenda and in some states. It will be on
your agenda, sooner rather than later." He said all telecom companies
should be free to "transmit data from sea to shining sea" and "consumers
should have access to open networks for broadband services." Faulting
"Ma Bell" for going on "broadband buying binge" in AT&T's purchases of
TCI and MediaOne, Machowsky said cable is only pipe into home not under
open access obligations. "Exclusive control of high-speed pipes means
less selection, diminished innovation and higher prices," he said,
faulting "ludicrous assertion that a monopoly network will offer
heightened innovation and improved customer choice." iAdvance is
coalition of public interest groups, Internet, computer and telecom
companies. (Communications Daily Nov-15-1999)


PERVASIVE SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced November 15, 1999 on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Persuasive Software Inc.
(Nasdaq: PVSW)  between July 15, 1999 and October 21, 1999, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The complaint charges Pervasive Software 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 Pervasive Software's common stock was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. A number of the
Company's insiders took advantage of the inflated stock price to sell
huge amounts of their own shares in the Company, reaping more than $11
million in proceeds from their insider sales.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Pervasive Software securities
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 4, 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 PVSW@bernlieb.com


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Pomerantz Haudek Says Shares Lose More Than 44%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following is announcement by the law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP:

Raytheon Company (NYSE:RTN/A and RTN/B) suffered a major drop in the
price of its shares after a series of announcements made on October 12,
1999. These announcements caused the price of Raytheon Class A stock to
plummet by 46%, while its Class B stock fell by 44%, erasing almost $
4.5 billion in market value, according to a Complaint filed by Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP.

Raytheon announced on October 12, 1999 that it was increasing the pretax
charge for the third quarter from between $350-$450 million to$638
million for 1999, and that it would be taking a $30 million charge for
the following year to close plants, shed assets, and write down
investments. In addition, Raytheon announced that it was not expecting
to receive further orders for its flagship Patriot missile for the
remainder of 1999 and the Company would cut 1999 year-end earnings
estimates to $1.40 to $1.50 per share, in contradiction to prior
information provided by defendants to the market during the Class Period
(March 30, 1998, and October 11, 1999, inclusive).

If you purchased Raytheon common stock during the Class Period and were
damaged, you have until December 13, 1999, to ask the Court to appoint
you as one of the lead plaintiffs for the Class. In order to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Andrew G.
Tolan, Esq. of the Pomerantz firm at 888-476-6529 (or (888) 4-POMLAW),
toll free, or at agtolan@pomlaw.com by e-mail. Those who inquire by
e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone
number.


RESTAURANT TEAMS: Investors Amend Claims On Stock Fraud & Self Dealing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas court dissolves preliminary injunction issued in connection with
investors' rule 144 stock.

On November 3, 1999, Sovereign Partners Limited Partnership, Dominion
Capital Fund Limited and Canadian Advantage Limited Partnership filed
with the Federal District Court a motion to amend their counterclaims
against Restaurant Teams International, Inc. (OTC BB: RTIN) and its CFO,
Curtis Swanson, and to add counterclaims against the company's CEO
Stanley Swanson, its former President Henry Leonard, its directors
Robert Lilly and Edward Dmytryk, its consultants and advisors Harry
McMillan, Stephen Cavender, Joseph E. Poe Jr., Thomas N. Aigner and Lee
Walsh, and others.

The counterclaims charge that the Swansons and other Restaurant Teams
officers, directors and advisors schemed to prop up the price of the
company's common stock during 1998 and 1999. Their methods included
placing strategic bids designed to move the market higher, publishing
materially false and misleading information concerning the company's
business and prospects, hyping a phony recommendation by an analyst whom
they provided with company stock, and creating additional artificial
demand for the stock by offering one free share for every four shares
purchased by investors willing to further disseminate falsely positive
rumors concerning the company's business and prospects. The free shares
were unlawfully issued through the company's employee stock option plan,
which was supposed to be used only for employees. The counterclaims
further allege that as a result of these schemes the insiders were able
to sell large amounts of their own Restaurant Teams stock at the
inflated prices they created. Since December 1, 1998, the Swansons,
together with Leonard and Cavender, sold or informed the SEC that they
planned to sell almost 1.8 million shares of RTI common stock,
representing over 27% of the company's total of 6.5 million shares
issued and outstanding as of year-end 1998.

The counterclaims also charge the Swansons and other Restaurant Teams
officers and directors with violating their fiduciary duties to the
company and its shareholders through mismanagement and self-dealing,
including the issuance of over 3.5 million shares of new stock for
little or no consideration to the Swansons themselves, Leonard,
Cavender, and many of their advisors and consultants, the payment of
unreasonable cash fees to other advisors, the pursuit of impracticable
acquisitions on unreasonable terms, which have resulted in large cash
losses to Restaurant Teams, and the providing of loans and other
financial favors to companies owned or controlled by the Swansons. For
example, Restaurant Teams loaned almost $1 million to Four Seasons
Marine and Cycle, a Swanson-owned "sister" company that recently went
bankrupt, leaving Restaurant Teams with another large cash loss.

The lawsuit was originally filed by Restaurant Teams itself in November
1998, in an effort to avoid its obligations under the $3 million in
convertible debentures that it sold to Sovereign, Dominion and Canadian
Advantage earlier in the year. The investors filed their original
counterclaims in December 1998. In May 1999, Restaurant Teams sought
court permission to dismiss all of its claims, leaving the counterclaims
pending. To date, however, Restaurant Teams has kept the$3 million paid
by Sovereign, Dominion and Canadian, and still refuses to honor the
terms of the debentures.

On November 10, 1999, in another lawsuit brought by Restaurant Teams, a
Texas court dissolved a preliminary injunction that it had issued at
Restaurant Teams' request. While the injunction was in place, it
prohibited the company's transfer agent from issuing unrestricted
certificates for shares owned by Sovereign, Dominion, and Canadian.
These shares were originally issued by the company as a result of
partial conversions of the debentures by the investors in the fall of
1998.


SAFETY INT'L: Lionel Z. Glancy Files Securities Suit In New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 21(D)(A)(3)(a)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Notice is hereby given that a Class Action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Safety Components International, Inc. (Nasdaq:ABAG) between
March 30, 1997, and November 9, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Safety and certain of its officers with violations
of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that
defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false
and misleading statements regarding the nature of Safety's operations
and financial statements drove Safety's stock price to a Class Period
high of $18.8125 per share. Safety's common stock fell to a class period
low of $2.5938 per share, and is currently halted from trading,
inflicting enormous damages on investors. Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages on behalf of Class members and is represented by the Law Offices
of Lionel Z. Glancy.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, not later than 60 days from November 12, 1999, 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, contact
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esquire, or Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of the Law
Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, Calif. 90067; by telephone at 310/201-9150 or toll-free
888/773-9224; by e-mail to info@glancylaw.com


STARNET COMMUNICATIONS: Keller Rohrback Investigates Securities Viol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP's Complex Litigation Group is pursuing its
investigation on behalf of securities holders regarding alleged
violations of the federal securities laws by Starnet Communications
International, Inc. (OTCBB:SNMM) and certain of its officers and
directors.

Shareholders have asserted that Starnet violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and issued materially false
and misleading statements about the nature of the Company's business and
failed to disclose potential liabilities in the Company's public filings
and public statements.

Starnet shareholders have asserted that Starnet has violated Canadian
gambling laws, and that the Company has accepted wagers from North
Americans, contrary to its public representations. As a result of such
misrepresentations and omissions, the price of Starnet's common stock
was artificially inflated from at least March 11, 1999 through August
20, 1999, enabling Defendants to sell thousands of shares and receive
millions of dollars in illicit insider trading profits. On August 20,
1999, after a police raid, the scheme was revealed and the stock price
plummeted by approximately 60 percent.

If you purchased Starnet common stock between March 11, 1999, and August
20, 1999, inclusive, you may wish to join the securities class actions
that have been filed. You may move the court to serve as a lead
plaintiff on or before December 14, 1999.

If you wish to discuss this announcement, have information relevant to
the investigation, wish to learn about your rights to seek to serve as a
lead plaintiff, or have any questions on how to join as a class
representative in any securities class action, you may contact Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. (Lynn L. Sarko or Elizabeth Leland, Esq.) toll free at
800/776-6044, or via e-mail at investor@kellerrohrback.com Those who
inquire by e-mail are asked to provide their mailing address and
telephone number.


U.S. FARMERS: Law Firms Announce Suit Over Fraud In Herbicide Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was issued November 12, 1999 by Douglas J. Nill Law Office
and Plunkett, Schwartz, Peterson, P.A.:

To all persons who purchased "Poast(R)" herbicide between January 1,
1992, and December 31, 1996, for use on their crops except persons who
are North Dakota residents who purchased Poast(R) in North Dakota:

This informs you of a class action lawsuit on behalf of United States
farmers who purchased "Poast(R)" herbicide from BASF Corporation
("BASF") between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1996. Because of a
prior lawsuit, this national class action excludes North Dakota
residents who purchased Poast(R) in North Dakota.

Class Representative Plaintiffs in Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota
claim Defendant BASF fraudulently marketed and priced one herbicide as
two separate products -- Poast(R) and Poast Plus(R) -- and seek damages.
Plaintiffs claim BASF labeled and marketed Poast(R) as another product
Poast Plus(R). Plaintiffs claim BASF dropped the price for Poast Plus(R)
to compete in the national soybean market but maintained an approximate
$4 per acre premium price for Poast(R) marketed to farmers of minor
crops such as sugarbeets, sunflowers, potatoes, field beans, fruits and
vegetables, even though both products were registered with the
Environmental Protection Agency for use on the same crops.

BASF denies Plaintiffs' claims and denies all wrongdoing. BASF claims
that Poast(R) and Poast Plus(R) are two different products, and that
BASF's actions with respect to the marketing and pricing of those
products were specifically in accord with federal law and with regular
industry practice, and were not fraudulent in any respect. The Court has
yet to rule on the merits of the claims.

A class action is a lawsuit in which a few named Plaintiffs sue on
behalf of themselves and all others with similar claims. This notice is
being published to advise persons who purchased Poast(R) herbicide and
may be members of this class, but cannot be individually identified, of
their rights with respect to the lawsuit (including the right to exclude
themselves from the class if they desire). If you wish to exclude
yourself from the class ("opt-out"), you must write a letter addressed
to Peterson/BASF, c/o Douglas J. Nill, 1012 Grain Exchange Building, 400
South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, postmarked 60 days or less
from the publication/postmark date of this notice.

If you wish to remain a member of the Class, you do not have to do
anything at this time. If you believe you are (or may be) a class
member, you may write to Plaintiffs' Class Counsel for a copy of a more
detailed Class Action Notice. Any questions you may have about this
litigation, this Notice, your membership in the Class and your rights as
class member should be directed to one of Plaintiffs' Class Counsel at
the following addresses:
Douglas J. Nill Law Office  Plunkett, Schwartz, Peterson, P.A.
Douglas J. Nill   Hugh V. Plunkett, III
1012 Grain Exchange Building Robert K. Shelquist
400 South Fourth Street  10 Second Street NE, Suite 114
Minneapolis, MN 55415  Minneapolis, MN 55413
Contact: Douglas J. Nill of Douglas J. Nill Law Office, 612-344-1551, or
Hugh V. Plunkett, III or Robert K. Shelquist, both of Plunkett,
Schwartz, Peterson, P.A., 612-378-3700


U.S. RETAILERS: Milberg Weiss Says CA Suit Re False Labeling Will Go On
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco Superior Court judge rejected November 12, 1999 efforts
by The Gap, Wal-Mart, JC Penney, and several other major U.S. retailers
to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them in January. The companies
allegedly used false advertising and unfair business practices regarding
their sales of clothing manufactured under sweatshop conditions on the
Western Pacific island of Saipan, a U.S. Commonwealth.

Based on Judge Munter's decision, the defendants will now have to stand
trial to determine whether their conduct violates California law. If
found liable, they could face disgorgement of millions of dollars of
past profits to provide restitution to California consumers, and to fund
a corrective advertising program.

"This decision is a major victory for consumers who rely on the 'Made in
the USA' label," said Michael Rubin of Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum,
Berzon & Rubin and one of the lead attorneys in the case. "We are well
on our way to changing Saipan from America's worst sweatshop to
America's last sweatshop."

Among the retailers' claims rejected by the court was that their
advertising is protected under the First Amendment as free speech, and
that only the U.S. Department of Labor, and not plaintiffs, could
challenge their marketing of allegedly "hot goods" manufactured in
violation of U.S. labor law. The judge found that California's unique
unfair business practices statute allows any Californian to act as a
"private attorney general" where government fails to act.

Filed by human rights and labor organizations, this case -- along with
two class actions currently pending in federal court -- is the
first-ever attempt to hold U.S. retailers accountable for mistreatment
of workers in foreign-owned factories operating on U.S. soil. The
companies are accused of advertising that their shelves are stocked only
with "No Sweat" garments, when in fact they are alleged to be made by
workers experiencing unlawful work and living conditions.

According to the complaint, the more than 13,000 garment workers in
Saipan, (part of the U.S. Commonwealth on the Northern Mariana Islands),
often work 12-hour days, seven days a week, in unsafe, unclean
conditions that flagrantly violate U.S. labor laws.

One of the primary claims in the lawsuit is that the Saipan garment
industry employs foreign workers, primarily young women from China,
Bangladesh and the Philippines, who are required to sign "shadow
contracts" waiving their basic human rights. These workers are allegedly
forced to pay "recruitment fees" as high as $10,000, creating an
indentured status that has been illegal in the United States since the
Civil War.

"We're quite pleased with today's ruling," said Al Meyerhoff of Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP; another lead attorney in the case.
"These companies seem more concerned about profit margins than human
rights. American consumers should not have to be embarrassed to wear
their clothing."

According to federal government estimates, last year alone, U.S.
retailers and their foreign-owned contractors in Saipan avoided more
than $200 million in duties for $1 billion worth of garments shipped
from Saipan to the United States mainland.

The Saipan garment factories are also being charged with failing to pay
overtime and creating substandard work and living conditions. In the
last five years, they have received more than 1,000 citations for
violating U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
standards, many of which were characterized as capable of causing death
or serious injury.

Over the past few months, nine major U.S. retailers, including
Nordstrom, J. Crew, Cutter & Buck and Gymboree, have agreed to a
comprehensive settlement of the litigation, and committed to requiring
their Saipan contractors in the future to meet strict workplace and
living conditions and not to impose illegal recruitment fees. An
independent monitoring body known as Verite will insure compliance,
including thorough surveillance and unannounced visits to the factories.

Plaintiffs include Sweatshop Watch, Global Exchange, the Asian Law
Caucus and UNITE!. They are represented by a coalition of law firms,
including Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP. Contact: Elizabeth
Buchanan of Fenton Communications, 202-822-5200, ext. 234, for Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP.


UNION CARBIDE: Bhopal Gas Disaster Victims File Suit In New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit was filed November 15, 1999 charging
Union Carbide Corporation and its former CEO, Warren Anderson, with
having violated international law and the fundamental human rights of
the victims and survivors of the Bhopal Gas Disaster in India on
December 2, 1984.

According to Kenneth McCallion, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and a
partner at Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, the complaint alleges
that "Union Carbide demonstrated a reckless and depraved indifference to
human life in the design, operation and maintenance of the Union Carbide
of India Ltd. ("UCIL") facility which resulted in the devastating leak
of mass amounts of methyl isocyanate ("MIC") into the city killing
thousands and injuring many thousands of its residents."

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.
1350). The complaint also charges "that the defendants are liable for
fraud and civil contempt for their total failure to comply with the
lawful orders of the courts of both the United States and India."

The plaintiffs in the case include individual survivors as well as the
victims' organizations in Bhopal that have been representing survivors
and next-of-kin of victims for the past 15 years. According to Satinath
Sarangi, founder of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action (BGIA),
a voluntary, non-governmental organization committed to grassroots
advocacy on behalf of Bhopal victims, which is also a plaintiff in the
action: "At least 6,000 people died immediately following the disaster,
and tens of thousands continue to suffer from what amounts to the
largest industrial disaster in history." Several years of litigation in
India resulted in a payment of $470 million by Union Carbide.

The complaint asserts that the Indian Supreme Court in its judgment of
October 1991 held that the criminal investigation and prosecution of
Union Carbide should proceed and stated that failure to accomplish this
would constitute "a manifest injustice." According to the complaint,
although Union Carbide was a party to all of these proceedings it
subsequently refused to comply with all efforts to obtain its appearance
for trial by the Bhopal District Court and the efforts of Indian
authorities to secure jurisdiction over Union Carbide have proved
futile, including the service of summons on Union Carbide through the
U.S. Department of Justice and INTERPOL. According to Rajan Sharma,
another attorney at Goodkind Labaton, the complaint asserts that
"notification for Union Carbide to appear for trial in India was
published in the Washington Post," and that Union Carbide has been
declared a "proclaimed absconder" by the Bhopal District Court. Contact:
Kenneth McCallion of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP,
212-907-0870


UNISYS CORP: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, November 12, 1999:

Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against
Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS) and certain of its officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or acquired the common stock of Unisys between May 4, 1999
and October 14, 1999, inclusive and who sustained damages as a result of
those purchases, including all shareholders of preferred stock who
converted that preferred stock to common stock during the Class Period.

The Complaint charges Unisys and certain officers and directors with
violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period,
the defendants knowingly or recklessly made misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material facts. Specifically, during the Class Period,
defendants boasted to investors of several very large contracts,
including one with British Telecommunications and another with the
United States government, while omitting to explain that these contracts
were subject to contingencies, which meant that they would not produce
revenue in upcoming quarters and might not produce revenue in later
periods. As a result of defendants' wrongful conduct, the price of
Unisys common stock traded at artificially inflated levels.

Plaintiff is represented by Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP and Bruce G.
Murphy, Esq. If you are a member of the Class, you may move the court,
no later than 60 days from date of notice to serve as a lead plaintiff
for the class. In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet
certain legal requirements. To ensure that your name will be included in
a list of class members or, if you have any questions concerning this
Notice, the action, or your rights, please contact: Fred S. Fox, Esq.,
Christine M. Comas, Esq., Hae Sung Nam, Esq. Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox
LLP, 805 Third Avenue -- 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Bruce G.
Murphy, Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL
32963-3252, toll free 800-290-1952, 212-687-1980, fax: 212-687-7714


UNISYS CORP: Rabin & Peckel File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Unisys
Corporationa (NYSE:UIS) between May 4, 1999 and October 14, 1999,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Unisys and certain of its officers violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to
generate revenue from several of its largest service contracts during
the Class Period. The Company failed to reveal that these contracts were
subject to regulatory and other contingencies, and therefore could not
be expected to generate revenue in the near future. The Complaint
further alleges that the individual defendants took advantage of their
inside information about the artificial inflation of the Company's stock
price to sell significant amounts of their personal holdings in Unisys
stock at considerable profit. The Complaint alleges that as a result of
these false and misleading statements the price of Unisys securities
were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period causing
plaintiffs and the other members of the Class to suffer damages.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Rabin & Peckel LLP. If you
purchased or otherwise acquired Unisys securities during the Class
Period described above, you may, no later than sixty (60) days from
October 28, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff. 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
announcement, or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Elana M. Bourkoff, Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10016, by telephone at 800/497-8076 or 212/682-1818, by
facsimile at 212/682-1892, or by e-mail at email@rabinlaw.com or at the
website at http://www.rabinlaw.com


* The Irish Times Says US Should Protect Citizens From Online Profiling
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the more outrageous online violations of consumer privacy emerged
when a stalwart company of the Internet world, RealNetworks, was
revealed to have been systematically gathering information on millions
of its customers without their knowledge or consent.

RealNetworks distributes programmes over the Internet called RealJukebox
and RealPlayer, which allow people to play audio and video on their
computers. The programs rank among the most popular downloads for
computer users, and often come bundled with Web browsers or free CDs
from computing magazines. RealNetworks claims 85 million people have
downloaded RealPlayer, and 12 million use RealJukebox.

Two weeks ago, a software user who has dedicated himself to uncovering
security and privacy problems in Internet software revealed the
existence in RealJukebox of a globally unique identifier (GUID). A GUID
is a unique number, assigned to each program, that allows RealNetworks
to track the personal listening habits of RealJukebox users. The number
is activated during the online registration process that users of
RealNetworks software go through to use the programs. The GUID can then
be associated with a particular individual, not just a particular
software download.

In essence, a GUID informs on a computer user by transmitting
information, such as a person's Web surfing and online buying habits,
back to a home site, creating an informative picture of an individual.
The technique is one of an arsenal of information-gathering tools used
for "online profiling", the overall term for gathering highly detailed
data that can be used then for targeted marketing. Online profiling is
not new and has already come under heavy criticism by privacy advocates,
who say that unregulated profiling offers an open door to widespread
abuse and misuse of consumer information. Information gathering for
profiling has become so widespread that most Internet users are probably
not aware that they are being targeted by it when they click through on
an ad, fill in an online form, or register a product online. Even simply
visiting a website can generate information on a Web user since
commercial sites routinely set "cookies" on a computer - small programs
that identify a Web user to the site on return visits and can allow
certain types of information-gathering.

The US has no equivalent of the European Union's Data Protection Act to
protect against secretive online profiling. Unsurprisingly, US companies
have said they do not want such regulations, can handle consumer data
responsibly and are willing to self-regulate in the area.

But the RealNetworks debacle is a damning indictment of the workability
of any plan to have companies voluntarily police themselves in the
ethical use of consumer data. For many Internet users, this is
particularly true because RealNetworks, given the nature of their
product, has always had an aura of Net hipness. They seemed to be brash,
energetic, and Net-savvy - in a good way.

Unfortunately, they used that savvy in an improperly secretive way. The
company's online privacy statement did not reveal to site visitors that
the company was gathering information, and many users rightly feel spied
upon. One has even filed a $ 500 million class action suit against the
company for privacy violation.

While the company scrambled to release a patch to RealJukebox that
disables the GUID and has placed a beta version of a new release of
RealPlayer (which doesn't transmit a GUID) on its site for download,
many feel its actions are too little, too late. On the other hand, the
alternative program - Microsoft's Windows Media Player - offers scant
improvement. The program also has a GUID that's activated when you
register, as many, if not most, Net users do with products. But, says
Microsoft, you don't actually have to register the product. That seems a
rather specious argument, given that Media Player users weren't properly
aware until now that registering enabled profiling. The RealNetworks
incident prompted an immediate response from the US Federal Trade
Commission, which held a hearing on online profiling in the wake of the
revelations.

Privacy advocates are particularly concerned at the moment about online
profiling because mergers within the online marketing industry threaten
to vastly increase the scope for harvesting and consolidating personal
information about Web users and shoppers in general. They point to the
pending merger between online advertising firm DoubleClick and direct
mail catalogue tracking company Abacus Direct Corporation. The merger,
they say, would bring together online profiles gathered from
clickthroughs from an estimated 850 million online advertisements, and
the individual purchasing histories of 88 million catalogue users.

Businesses certainly have not yet shown that they have any overriding
interest in protecting consumer data and in contrast, have every reason
to exploit it. RealNetworks has demonstrated how compelling that desire
can be. Therefore, it's time for the US to look after its citizen's
privacy rights and create comprehensive and purposeful legislation in
this area - which, incidentally, also would resolve the festering
conflict between the EU and US over the use of European citizen's data.
This conflict threatens to hobble online trade between them. (The Irish
Times Nov-12-1999)


                               *********


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  * * *